...

The Structuring Effects of Racial Agency in Peru

by user

on
0

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

The Structuring Effects of Racial Agency in Peru
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
Word Count: 9,900
Abstract
In Peru, the racial/ethnic category mestizo refers to mixed-race people. The mestizo category,
however, presents several analytic challenges. At first, the boundaries of the mestizo group are
blurry due to the phenotypic diversity of mestizos. Furthermore, while most Peruvians identify
themselves as mestizos, many do not recognize the mestizo status of others who claim the same
identity. Nonetheless, the prominence of the mestizo racial/ethnic condition in the mainstream
discourse and the prevalence of the dynamics of mestizaje justify the use of these categories in
racial/ethnic studies. In this article, I interpret the self-reported race/ethnic identity following a
cultural definition of the mestizo group. I also analyze racial/ethnic socioeconomic differences
in urban Peru using survey data. I find evidence of significant advantages favoring the mestizo
group over the Quechua and Aymara indigenous groups with respect to education and income.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
2
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
As other Latin-American countries, Peru is characterized by racial/ethnic diversity. The
formal/official racial/ethnic categories are mestizos (for mixed-race people), indigenous (mainly
for the Andean ethnic groups Quechua and Aymara, and the Amazonian ethnic groups), whites,
blacks (negro/mulato/zambo) and Asians. This diversity is determined by the degree of IndoLatin American physical traits (evident in the vast majority of Peruvians), by the degree of
whiteness from the Spanish legacy, and by the influence of other ethnicities, such as the African
and the Asian heritages. Nonetheless, these phenotypic components do not automatically
determine the racial identity of the person. A mestizo, for instance, could be considered as white
by more indigenous people or could be considered as indigenous by whiter people depending on
the specific context. Class and regional differences also might influence how an individual is
classified. Peru is composed of strikingly disparate realities at various regional levels. It is not
the same to live in the coastal, metropolitan Lima than to live either in the Andean highlands or
in the Amazonian jungle.
Moreover, Peru’s socioeconomic stratification is severely associated with its racial
hierarchies, in which the most disadvantaged people are the indigenous ethnic groups. Not only
were they historically dominated, but they were also isolated from the mainstream ideal of
nation, and consequently excluded over time. These differences are often depicted by the
distinction between rural and urban. According to the 2010 Peruvian poverty rates (INEI 2010),
54.2 percent of the rural population is below the poverty line; and 23.3 percent, below the
extreme poverty line. Another sign of the social distance is how those who are not excluded are
not capable of understanding the seriousness and the complexity of the distance itself. After the
1980s and 1990s war against terrorism (the Shining Path and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
3
Movement – MRTA), many Peruvians have not accepted that it was the rural, Andean and
Amazonian, Quechua and Asháninka, peasant and formally uneducated Peru that bled while
nobody paid attention to the real dimension of the tragedy (CVR 2008: 27). Although it is safe
to assert, based on cultural and historical reasons, that the rural population is traditionally
indigenous, neither is the category rural the main nor the only racial marker of indigenousness.
It is, therefore, possible to identify a national racial hierarchy with categories
acknowledged by the majority, either internalized or challenged through certain dynamics.
Despite the prevalence of these categories, their boundaries are not clearly identifiable due to the
overlapping of phenotypic and cultural issues. Certainly, the aforementioned rural category has
limitations as a common racial/ethnic marker. On one hand, a 21 percent of the population in
urban settings reported themselves as Quechuas or Aymaras; on the other hand, a 45 percent of
the population in rural areas reported themselves as mestizos (INEI 2006: 92). These boundaries
even become less clear if we consider that Peruvians do not necessarily accept the self-adopted
racial/ethnic identities of other Peruvians.
This lack of clear racial boundaries is a problematic sign of social integration. Racism
has been one of Peru’s main problems. Carrión, Zárate and Seligson (2010) suggest that Peru
has a very high rate of racial discrimination among the nations that have a high proportion of
indigenous populations (only below Dominican Republic and Bolivia). They also suggest that
racism in Peru is “invisible,” neither openly acknowledged by the Peruvians nor sufficiently
addressed as a major problem by the mainstream. Muñoz, Paredes and Thorp (2006: 6) also
suggest that the prevailing discourse in Peru is reluctant to admit the importance of ethnicity in
spite of a high degree of horizontal inequality.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
4
A key aspect in Peruvian race relations is the notion of mestizaje, rooted in this nation’s
colonial past, and crucial to understand the dynamics that allow Peruvians to be aware of their
racial identities. The importance of mestizaje in Latin America has been underlined by many
scholars from a variety of disciplines in order to analyze socioeconomic and cultural fissures in
their studied countries (de la Cadena 2000; Hale 2002; Wade 2004, 2009; Telles 2001, 2004;
García 2005; Arnold 2009; Moreno Figueroa 2010; Villareal 2010; Beck, Mijeski and Stark
2011). In this article, I analyze socioeconomic differences by race/ethnic group to reveal the
advantages that mestizos have over people from certain ethnic groups in urban Peru using survey
data. By doing this, I introduce the Peruvian mestizo condition as a locally acknowledged
racial/ethnic category for phenotypically heterogeneous individuals. To my knowledge, only a
few studies have statistically examined socioeconomic differences in Peru associated with racial
and ethnic distinctions (Ñopo, Saavedra and Torero 2004; Torero, Saavedra, Ñopo and Escobal
2004; Benavides, Torero and Valdivia 2006; Barrón 2008).
THE HEGEMONIC RACIAL HIERARCHY IN PERU
I define the hegemonic racial hierarchy in Peru as the conceptual ranking of prevalent
racial/ethnic categories legitimized over time by the mainstream. It has been explicitly and
subtly spread out in different levels by interaction, by education and by the media. This
hierarchy still resembles the colonial prejudice against indigenousness and blackness. The white
category is on the top, being followed by the categories Asian and mestizo; the black and
indigenous categories are on the bottom. According to the National Continuous Survey (INEI
2006: 92), 59.5 percent of Peruvians self-reported as mestizos; 22.7 percent, as Quechuas; 2.7
percent, as Aymaras; 1.8 percent as Amazonians; 1.6 percent as blacks (negro/mulato/zambo);
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
5
4.9 percent, as whites; and 6.7 percent as others (Moche, Chinese, Japanese, among others).
These estimates reveal the relevance of the mestizo and the indigenous categories.
In Peru, white people are a minority. They descend from Europeans, mostly from
Spaniards. Similarly to other European colonial experiences, the colonists’ whiteness embodied
superiority and dominance. The criollos were initially the descendants of Spaniards born in the
viceroyalty of Peru, and had a higher status in the racial hierarchy than mestizos, indigenous
people and blacks. However, they were below the Spaniards who were born in Spain. For the
latter, according to Portocarrero (2004: 190-191), everything that was native was undervalued,
considered as a “second class copy,” and criollos “absorbed” this image. The criollo society
rejected this system, considering it to be abusive, illegitimate and corrupt. Nevertheless, rather
than building a counter-hegemonic proposal, they subtly transgressed the imposed order
following the example of the Spaniards who plundered the viceroyalty. Eventually, this
transgression led to the tacit normalization of illegal practices and the abuse of others, weakening
in this way the collective moral order, and thus impeding the development of the ideal of a
society that integrates its individuals. The criollos developed a distant attitude, lacking
initiatives for promoting order in the society while they got used to enjoying the benefits of being
more powerful than others. It is safe to assert that the old criollo “habitus” (see Bourdieu 1984;
García 2005: 29) defined the sociocultural characteristics of the white elites.
Mestizo was the category for the descendant of a Spaniard and an indio according to the
caste system of the viceroyalty. Its etymological meaning points out the mixed-race condition.
However, the notion of mestizaje changed with the creation of the republic in the 19th century
while the prevailing conceptualizations of development were embedded in the notions of
modernity and scientific racism. The migrants who chose Peru during that period were not the
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
6
flow of white people that would have “improved the race” according to the hegemonic beliefs.
Instead, Asians started to migrate to Peru during the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century
as cheap labor after the abolition of black slavery in 1854 (see Casalino 2005; Takenaka 2004).
Opening the doors to white foreign people was not a viable option for the local white criollo
elites because the vast majority of the population was indigenous; thus, they had to find other
ways of settings the base for progress. In that context, the notion of mestizaje became a more
complex ideology, which invited everybody to leave the indio status behind through education in
order to achieve citizenship (see Portocarrero 2007: 22). According to Gootemberg (1995: 14),
this invitation “worked.” The proportion of the indigenous population around half of the 19th
century was 59.3 percent. By 1876, the proportion of indigenous people dropped to 54.8 percent
as the consequence of embracing the mestizo category.
Afro-Peruvians descend from the slaves brought by the Europeans during the colonial
period, and they are still stigmatized. Like the indigenous ethnic groups, they still suffer from
poverty and discrimination (Benavides et al. 2006). Conversely, the status of Asian-Peruvians
has improved over time. Nowadays, it is safe to assert that being Asian is associated with
positive stereotypes, reinforced by the economic success of prominent Asian descendants.
Although Afro- and Asian-Peruvians have always been tiny minorities in relation to other ethnic
groups, they have significantly contributed to the Peruvian culture with their traditions. Afroand Asian-Peruvians initially formed their respective enclaves, which still endure in many
provinces and neighborhoods even though many have left these places behind and assimilated
themselves. While some still identify themselves as black/Afro-Peruvian people or AsianPeruvians, many individuals with black and Asian phenotypic traits see themselves as mestizos.
The phenotypic diversity within the mestizo group became dramatically heterogeneous.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
7
The evolution of the mestizo ideology has gradually incorporated certain cultural
traditions and practices from indigenous, Afro-Peruvian and Asian heritages assimilated to the
mainstream. Nowadays, for instance, indigenous textiles, Afro-Peruvian music, or Chifa, the
fusion between Chinese and criollo food, are accepted as national mainstream symbols, rather
than merely manifestations of specific ethnic groups. The mestizo discourse on equality has
become stronger over time integrating the accepted non-white symbols of the mestizos who
achieved some prosperity with the criollo cultural manifestations and beliefs. Nonetheless, the
mestizo discourse on equality has not shortened the socioeconomic distances among whites,
mestizos, indigenous and Afro-Peruvian people. Cultural dynamics of differentiation are still at
the core of the ideology of mestizaje.
Cánepa (2008: 28) points out the importance of culture on mestizaje in the sense that
groups and individuals use indigenous and mestizo referents in a contextualized and situated way
to empower themselves. While embracing the criollo whiteness could be a more identifiable
dynamic among mestizos with a certain degree of white phenotypic traits (see Beck et al. 2011:
106), the dynamic of de-Indianization (de la Cadena 2000) refers to a more cultural redefinition
and construction of the mestizo identity. De la Cadena (2000: 6)1 suggests that essentialist
notions of culture have been redefined by replacing regional beliefs in fixed identities with
infinite degrees of fluid Indianness or mestizoness. From this perspective, mestizos did not just
assimilate themselves, paraphrasing Vargas Llosa, through the adoption of “the culture of their
ancient masters” (1990, qtd. in de la Cadena 2000: 6); they also incorporated meaningful cultural
practices to the construction of the mestizo identity.
1
de la Cadena’s research was conducted in Cusco. Although her research was about cusqueños as indigenous
mestizos, this dynamic is identifiable everywhere in the nation.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
8
Nonetheless, the mestizo racial condition only has relative and contextualized advantages
over the indigenous and Afro-Peruvian conditions. Racial/ethnic boundaries are fluid to the
extent to which the individual can circumstantially negotiate a better racial status (see de la
Cadena 2000; Paredes 2007; Cánepa 2008; Sulmont 2010: 6). A migrant, for instance, could be
perceived as a mestizo who succeeded in his peripheral district by his neighbors, but this
successful individual will not necessarily be recognized as a mestizo by someone from a
traditional middle class district in Lima because of their cultural and socioeconomic differences.
Likewise, indigenous mestizos in Andean areas are more likely to be considered just as
indigenous individuals from a hegemonic perspective without acknowledging their local
differences. The mestizo status is more likely to be successfully achieved if the cultural or
physical indigenous characteristics of the person are circumstantially less noticeable. These
cultural dynamics have permeated the mestizo identity with its inherent contradictions and
conflicts, keeping in mind that the mainstream ideals of power, goodness, and beauty have
always been white (see Portocarrero 2007; Bruce 2007).
THE ANALYSIS OF RACE AND ETHNICITY IN PERU
In Peru, ethnicity has usually been studied with qualitative theoretical approaches. These
analyses have the old indigenista paradigm as its base2, complemented later by other approaches
such as development and cultural theories in the 1960s; Marxism, ethnohistory and dependency
theories in the 1970s; and Andean studies and migration in the 1980s and 1990s (Degregori
1995). Foundational studies such as the works by Fuenzalida (1970), Cotler (1978), Matos Mar
([1984] 1986), Flores Galindo (1987), Nugent (1992), and Portocarrero (1993) emphasized
development, national integration, migration and modernization as crucial frames for
2
Indigenismo refers to the study of Indo-American indigenous groups, to the sociopolitical and economical stance
that advocates the vindication of the indigenous populations, and to the Indo-American indigenous themes in art and
literature. In Peru, indigenismo prevailed as an important trend during the first half of the 20th century.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
9
understanding the indigenous world. The conceptualization of races (and race variables as
appropriate indicators of race) has not necessarily been accepted by local scholars (see Sulmont
2010: 5). Degregori, for instance, criticized the definition of racial groups as differentiated, well
defined blocks, arguing that the racial boundaries among Peruvians are not as clear as the
boundaries in the U.S. (1999). He also criticized the “hierarchizing” ethnic views that are
incapable of conceiving Peruvian social change as a possible step toward an endogenous
modernity that integrates the nation and leads it toward a representative democracy (Degregori
1995: 320). Nonetheless, these “hierarchizing” views have often corresponded to the persistence
of racism, discrimination, and exclusion (see Callirgos 1993; Huayhua 2006; Planas and Valdivia
2007; Reyes and Valdivia 2010) in spite of any simultaneous dynamic of integration.
In order to analyze different aspects of the economic impact of social exclusion in urban
Peru, Ñopo et al. (2004) and Torero et al. (2004) used self-reported racial scores and scores
assigned by the pollsters from the 2000 Living Standards Measurement Survey. Race by
phenotype was measured with ordinal measures of intensity for the categories white, indigenous,
black and Asian, ranging from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) in each independent dimension. This
survey did not obtain representative samples of the black and Asian groups because of their
relative small sizes. Moreover, a considerable share of the population self-reported themselves
as having a median intensity of 5 (from 0 to 10 in each dimension) for the categories white and
indigenous, which could be interpreted as the lack of judging elements that people had at the
moment of racially classifying themselves (Torero et al. 2004: 5). The data also suggested that
the respondents perceived themselves less indigenous compared to how they were perceived by
the pollsters. Ñopo et al. (2004) and Torero et al. (2004) worked with the pollsters’ perception
variables because their main aim was to identify labor market exclusion given observable ethnic
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
10
characteristics. Ñopo et al. (2004) found that the average individual with the highest white
intensity earns approximately 49.47 percent more than the average individual with the lowest
white intensity in per hour terms. After controlling for a set of variables such as sex, years of
schooling and years of occupational experience, among others, the gap shrinks to 11.95 percent.
Torero et al. (2004) add that there is a significant correlation between educational attainment and
ethnicity that favors whiter people, and that there is no conclusive evidence of discrimination in
credit accesses.
Following Figueroa’s Sigma theory (2003, 2006)3, Barrón (2008) differentiated
discrimination and exclusion in order to explain differences in income between indigenous and
non-indigenous Peruvians. In this paper, exclusion is represented by an underclass –the
indigenous– that face serious disadvantages (in relation to other ethnic groups), which
consequently thwart its access to more human capital. Discrimination is the unfair compensation
for people from the underclass compared to those from other better ranked racial groups with the
same qualifications. This distinction made him refer to the work by Ñopo et al. (2004),
suggesting that roughly one fourth of the initial gap (12 percent over 50 percent) is due to
discrimination (after other observable characteristics were controlled); and three fourths, to
exclusion. Considering region of birth as a proxy for ethnicity, Barrón suggests that two thirds
of the Peruvian population is indigenous. Using this conceptualization, he identified that the
annual mean income for non-indigenous (13,145 real nuevos soles) is twice the annual mean
income for indigenous (7,369 real nuevos soles), even excluding the elites from the analysis. He
also posited that exclusion explains a larger share of income inequality than discrimination. His
3
As an alternative to neoclassical theory, Sigma theory explains the existence and persistence of discrimination. It
supposes, among other assumptions, that there are different hierarchical levels of citizenship for each ethnic group
(Figueroa 2006: 6).
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
11
simulations revealed that, without discrimination, income inequality (measured by the Gini
index), would be reduced by 20 percent; and without exclusion, by 28 percent.
Benavides et al. (2006) aimed to explain the differences between the Afro-Peruvian
population and other racial/ethnic groups. Based on the 2003 INEI’s National Household Survey
(specifically, on its information about households with Afro-Peruvian characteristics), they
oversampled Afro descendants from those who previously reported themselves as AfroPeruvians, and those who had Afro-Peruvian relatives in the 2004 Household Survey. Using a
rigorous method of classification, they determined that a 37.5 percent of the subsample was
Afro-Peruvian. They compared the socioeconomic characteristics of Afro-Peruvians with the
characteristics of other groups obtained in the Household Survey, being these groups those who
self-reported themselves as indigenous and non-indigenous at the national level, and those who
self-reported themselves as indigenous and non-indigenous in the coastal areas excluding Lima.
The emphasis on the coastal areas is explained by the fact that most Afro-Peruvians live in the
coast. Among their results, they found that the average household income per capita of AfroPeruvians (220.64 nuevos soles) was lower than the average household per capita income at the
national level (290.64 nuevos soles), and lower than the non-indigenous average household per
capita income at the national level (342.64 nuevos soles) and in the coast (243.23 nuevos soles).
However, it was higher than the indigenous average household per capita income at the national
level (166.98 nuevos soles). The difference with the indigenous average household per capita
income in the coast seemed to be smaller, but there was not enough evidence to make a
conclusion about the latter.
Sulmont (2010) calls attention to several important issues associated with quantitative
analyses on race and ethnicity in Peru. Following Brubaker (2004, qtd. in Sulmont 2010: 3-5),
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
12
he points out the risk of reifying racial categories; thus, the risk of promoting and legitimating a
clearly delimited depiction of reality. Sulmont also affirms that racial/ethnic categories have
suggested different empiric measures of “ethnic/indigenous groups” associated with indigenous
identity due to their lack of precision for measuring the Peruvian diversity. Furthermore, he
emphasizes the importance of multidimensional approaches for measuring ethnicity that
incorporate several indicators, such as region, language, and ethnic self-ascription. These issues
are addressed in the following sections.
THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ANALYSIS
I posit the following theoretical assumptions for addressing relevant issues associated
with this analysis. The first and second assumptions point out the importance of understanding
the aforementioned racial/ethnic categories as socially and ideologically meaningful constructs.
The third assumption deals with the self-reported race/ethnic variable as a reliable measure of
these racial/ethnic categories.
In Peru, Racial/Ethnic Categories Are Meaningful Social and Ideological Constructs
The social understanding of racial/ethnic categories can be outlined as continuously
socially defined constructs based on prevalent stereotypes that are not currently supported by
scientific biological explanations (Texeira 2003; Winant 2004; Planas et al. 2007; Wade 2009).
Understanding these categories as social constructs also might lead to a more elaborated
understanding of race/ethnic relations in terms of systemic or structural phenomena (see Essed
1991; Santa Ana 2002; Feagin et al. 2003; Bonilla-Silva 2006).
Moreover, Essed (1991: 43) suggests that the idea of race has never existed outside of a
framework of group interest. From this perspective, racial meanings are also ideological. On
one hand, these meanings are deliberately constructed and disseminated, understanding ideology
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
13
as the ideas and beliefs that contribute to legitimize the interests of a group or dominant class
(Eagleton 1997: 54; Essed 1991: 44). On the other hand, these meanings are historically
inherited understanding ideology as the articulated social order to which people are normally
oblivious (Santa Ana 2002: 18); the deceptive and fake beliefs that support our affective and
unconscious relations with the world, pointing out how we are pre-reflectively tied to the social
reality (see Eagleton 1997: 40, 54).
I underline the significance of these categories as a caveat against certain claims on
equality that often dim the importance of the racial hierarchy. The common claim “We are all
mestizos” does not reflect the hierarchical reality. Otherwise, it would not make sense as a
claim. Based on this significance, I also attempt to address the reification issue highlighted by
Sulmont (2010). Even though race has not been measured by the official surveys and censuses
since the 1940 census4 (Sulmont 2010: 7), the prevalent official racial/ethnic categories have
never disappeared from the mainstream racial discourse. From this perspective, I consider
necessary to keep analyzing the effect of these mainstream categories on the production of reality
depicted in socioeconomic and cultural differences, rather than disregarding their relevance.
Although Sulmont (2010: 5-6) affirms that the average individual (especially the indigenous
individual) is not necessarily familiar with certain categories, it is safer to expect that the future
generations of indigenous people will become more familiar with these terms, considering that
rural people travel to the cities and bring back urban habits, values, behaviors and tastes (see
Diez 1997).
4
Recent exceptions are the self-reported race/ethnic variables measured by the National Continuous Survey and the
National Household Survey.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
14
In Peru, Racialized Terms Are Associated with the Mestizo Differentiation
As implied above, racial/ethnic categories are commonly acknowledged by Peruvians,
but they are not necessarily the most popular categories used in racialized interactions. The lack
of clear phenotypic boundaries is stressed by many ambiguous popular epithets that
circumstantially reveal the fluid racial status of the individual. Demonyms, ethnic words, and
ambiguous epithets are often preferred to racially differentiate either others or even the self from
the indio status to the extent to which the interaction is racialized. In low racialized contexts,
these words might be used as endearment terms. In high racialized contexts, these words are
understood as insults. Negro is a common nickname that is often accepted as a normal, even
affectionate term in spite of their condescending meaning. Cholo refers to the indigenous or
mestizo person with the purpose of pejoratively pointing at her/his indigenousness; however, like
negro, it also might be used as an endearment term. Serrano (from the highlands) is a racialized
demonym that, like cholo, is used to despise indigenous or mestizo Andean people either in the
coast or in the jungle. These terms are often used to differentiate a specific racial/ethnic status
from the inferior archetypical category indio (Planas et al. 2007: 11; Cánepa 2008: 28; de la
Cadena 2000; Portocarrero 2007).
These differentiations still refer to the ideology of mestizaje, but they are not always
made by people who ascribe a racial/ethnic identity using the mestizo label. Other racialized
terms (e.g. Quechua terms, other demonyms) might be locally preferred in certain regions (see,
for instance, the use of the terms chutos, campesinos, and mistis in the work by Muñoz et al.
2006: 15-17). Despite the complexity of the associations between these racialized terms and the
mestizo and indigenous racial categories, I argue that the differentiation represents an attempt of
mestizaje that might lead the individual to culturally identify herself/himself as a mestizo.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
15
Although this individual might identify herself/himself more with other racialized labels, it
would make sense if she/he ascribes the mestizo status to deny her/his contextualized
indigenousness. The mestizo category becomes meaningful not only by the self-acceptance of
the identity label “mestizo,” but also by the practices associated with the mestizo beliefs.
The Mestizo Group Can Be Partially Identified by Cultural Boundaries (Racial Ascription by
Culture versus Race by Phenotype)
Although categorical race/ethnic variables are common measures of race/ethnic groups, it
is necessary to distinguish them from the race/ethnic construct, in which the phenotypic
component is often the most important one, but not the only one. Race variables in databases
attempt to describe the race/ethnic construct with the proportional relevance of each race/ethnic
group in the studied population. These are powerful measures to the extent to which the
construct they describe is clearly identified. In racial/ethnic analysis, the more homogeneous by
phenotype the racial/ethnic group is, and the more differentiated racial/ethnic groups are in a
society, the more reliable its corresponding traditional race/ethnic variable will be as an indicator
of the construct race.
** INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE **
Figure 1 depicts how the self-reported and the pollster’s perception race/ethnic variables
are insufficient for dealing with the mestizo heterogeneity and the circumstantial blurry
boundaries if the construct mestizo is defined by phenotype. In contrast, the race/ethnic variable
seems to better indicate the race construct if the race is phenotypically homogeneous. Certainly,
less traditional variables such as skin tone (see Villareal 2010) and the ordinal measures of
intensity suggested by Ñopo et al. (2004) and Torero et al. (2004) are necessary if the analysis
prioritizes the phenotypic component as a significant determinant of social stratification,
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
16
discrimination and exclusion. Undoubtedly, the emphasis on the phenotypic component is
necessary in an exhaustive quantitative analysis of racial/ethnic stratification. Obtaining
traditional and non-traditional, self-reported and assigned by the pollster5 measures of race as
well as the racial characteristics of the pollsters (see Villareal 2010: 663-665) on a frequent basis
would be necessary in order to better accomplish this purpose. Nonetheless, data on race and
ethnicity in Peru are still scarce, being the self-reported racial/ethnic categories the most
common obtained variable in surveys.
However, it also would be necessary to identify whether the cultural and ideological
commonalities of a non-homogeneous racial/ethnic group by phenotype have a structuring effect.
From this perspective, the self-reported racial/ethnic category can be understood as the racialized
role-identity (see McCall and Simmons 1966: 67) of an adult respondent at the moment of
answering the question. It is very likely that the respondent, as an adult, has already structured
the main components of her/his self (see McCall and Simmons 1966: 76-78). Therefore, it is
expected that the racialized role-identity of the respondent is consonant with her/his claimed
racial status.
It would be rare if the mestizo admits in front of a non-familiar person (the pollster)
her/his failure in negotiating the claimed racial status, something that the mestizo is more likely
to share only with the mirror considering that she/he has to overcome racial discrimination in
order to attempt success in life. This interpretation is indirectly supported by Ñopo et al. (2004)
and Torero et al. (2004), whose data suggest, as mentioned above, that the respondents consider
themselves less indigenous compared to how they are perceived by the pollsters. Pointing at the
5
Although debatable, this method seems to be less biased, considering that pollsters have to follow standardized
guidelines that do not necessarily match the respondents’ self-reported races. These measures are needed in order to
address the local hegemonic view on races, being this view supported by standard criteria of inclusion and
discrimination.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
17
results of other studies, Planas et al. (2007: 8-9) also affirm that even though Peruvians describe
their society as racist, only a few Peruvians admit that they were victims of racial discrimination.
The mestizo would be revealing his lack of racial agency if she/he portrays herself/himself as a
victim of racism in front of others. Following this logic, the self-reported race variable seems to
be reliable for identifying those who claim the mestizo condition in spite of how they are seen by
others.
Consequently, rather than an indicator of those who could fit in a mestizo category
determined by an average phenotype, the traditional self-reported race/ethnic variable is a
mutually exclusive indicator of those who claim mestizaje in contrast with those who do not
claim it. Then, it can be useful to estimate the extent to which embracing a category,
understanding this micro event as an ideological and cultural racial/ethnic phenomenon, has a
significant structuring effect in Peru. Instead of automatically disregarding this variable as an
unreliable measure of racial/ethnic group, I considered necessary to reinterpret it in order to
better identify the cultural construct it describes.
DATA AND VARIABLES
The data used in this analysis comes from the project “The Americas and the World:
Public Opinion and Foreign Policy,” run by the International Studies Division at Centro de
Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) in Mexico. 6 The 2008 survey was conducted by
the Instituto de Opinión Pública (Institute of Public Opinion) – Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú. It was designed to measure the public opinion about the international relations
between Peru and other nations at the national/urban level in Peru. The sampling methods were
probabilistic, multistage, cluster and systematic, starting with blocks and continuing with
6
The data, the methodology report and the questionnaire are downloadable at http://mexicoyelmundo.cide.edu/
home2010english.swf
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
18
households. Quotas were assigned for sex and age according to the demographic distribution of
the population. The sampling size was 1235 interviewed adults (18 years and older). The
interviews were made between September 5 and September 8, 2008. All the provinces where the
surveys were conducted concentrate the 49.41 percent of the Peruvian population.
The variables used in this analysis belong to the section on the general information of the
respondent. I took advantage of these data in order to work on a general approach to the topic in
order to make a different sense of the self-reported race/ethnic variable. Identifying different
socioeconomic effects by racial categories in urban Peru reveals that the socioeconomic
stratification by race/ethnic group is not just relevant at the national level, in which the rural
indigenous people are noticeably excluded. Urban Peru is also severely fragmented, being its
socioeconomic differences associated with the racial hierarchy.
** INSERT TABLE 1 HERE **
The categorical self-reported race/ethnic variable has the racial/ethnic categories
Quechua, Aymara, Amazonian (de la Amazonía), black (negro/mulato/zambo), mestizo, white
(blanco) and Asian (asiático). I discarded the Asian observations for the analysis: only 7
respondents (.57 percent of the sample) identified themselves as Asians. I also anticipate that
some of these categories are not conceptually reliable, but I kept them in the analysis as control
variables. The category de la Amazonía could refer to either indigenous Amazonian people or to
those individuals who do not belong to an Amazonian ethnic group, but use the Amazonian term
as a demonym. Likewise, the category white is also problematic because it would not be rare
that many individuals could have claimed the white racial status following the logic of mestizaje,
being these individuals different by phenotype in relation to the archetypical privileged white
Peruvian. The self-reported race/ethnic variable is, in this sense, insufficient to identify the
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
19
differences between those who are more likely to fit into the white category and those who
would better fit in the rest of the racial categories. In addition, I did not create a race/ethnic
variable for the indigenous people because the Quechuas and the Aymaras are not the only
people that could be considered as indios. It would make sense to create this variable if other
indigenous ethnic groups were able to be incorporated. Therefore, the aim of this analysis is to
statistically examine whether those who claim the mestizo condition have advantages over those
who identify themselves in ethnic terms as Quechuas or Aymaras in urban Peru.
The variable education is categorical and ordinal. It refers to the educational attainment
of the respondent with ten categories. I added the eight observations from the last category
“graduate degree” to the previous category “complete university,” creating in this way the
category “complete university or more.” Undoubtedly, this variable is fundamental in the
analysis. On one hand, the educational attainment depends on the socioeconomic stratification
of the society: the more privileged the person is, the better the education this person will get. On
the other hand, as suggested above, education becomes a mean to a racialized success under the
ideology of mestizaje: the more educated the person is, the higher this person’s likelihood of
becoming a mestizo will be. Similarly, the variable monthly household income is categorical
and ordinal with nine categories. Unfortunately, neither does this survey include information
about the personal income of the respondent nor the number of residents in the household.
Nonetheless, this analysis conventionally assumes that household income is a major determinant
of the economic wellbeing of the individual. Furthermore, I considered the dummy variable
“You would say that the total family income: (4) it is not enough and we have a lot of
[economic] problems” as the respondent’s self-perception of poverty in order to complement the
analyses on income.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
20
The categorical variables female, region, and speak indigenous language, as well as the
continuous age are gradually incorporated in the models as control variables. It is necessary to
underline the importance of region and speak indigenous language from this group (see Sulmont
2010: 8). As suggested above, Peruvian socioeconomic realities are geographically very
dissimilar (see Barrón 2008: 57). The main criterion for identifying urbanity in Peru is usually
size by number of households. In this sense, it is very different to be from and to live in Lima,
the capital city, probably the only city that has the evident features of a main global urban city in
spite of the noticeable disparities within the area.7 Although other main Peruvian cities have
significantly grown in recent years, rural activities are still major local economic enterprises in
these urban areas.8 The region variable differentiates those who were in Lima (the reference
category) from those who were in other coastal areas, and from those who were in the highlands
and the jungle.
The indigenous language variable identifies those who can speak Quechua or Aymara,
the languages of their respective ethnic groups. However, there are people who identify
themselves as Quechuas or Aymaras and do not speak indigenous languages (35 percent of
Quechuas and 23 percent of Aymaras in the sample), and there are mestizos who speak these
languages (7 percent in the sample). According to the 2007 census, the proportion of ethnic
languages native speakers is decreasing over years (see INEI 2008: 117). A plausible argument
is that those who identify as Quechuas or Aymaras and do not speak the respective ethnic
languages still have other strong cultural bonds with their ethnic groups. The case of mestizos
who speak indigenous languages points out that they have negotiated the mestizo status or, more
7
Almost one third of the Peruvian population –8,445,211 individuals, 30.8 percent– resided in the department of
Lima during the 2007 census (INEI 2008: 23).
8
However, it is safe to assert that rural activities are generally more developed in these cities than the rural activities
in more isolated rural areas.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
21
rarely, that they have been prone to culturally seeing themselves as mestizos in relation to the
indigenous others in their respective local contexts.9 Nevertheless, not only does this variable
work as a necessary control in the models, it is also a considerable indicator of indigenousness,
although not the main one in this analysis.
The first part of the statistical analysis examines the relation between educational
attainment and race/ethnic group. I use two educational attainment variables –the dummy
variables “complete primary school or less” for low educational attainment and “complete
university or more” for high educational attainment– as response variables in logistic regression
models. I excluded those who have not completed the requisite previous level of education
(those who have not completed secondary school) for the models predicting the attainment of
complete university or more (high educational attainment), which are standard “continuationratio” logit models. Region and indigenous language are gradually incorporated as control
variables.
The second part examines the association between income, race/ethnic group and
education. Firstly, I use the categorical variable “minimum monthly wage or less,” obtained
from the variable income (those who monthly earn less than US$200.0010) as the response
variable in logistic regression models. As a reference, it is necessary to indicate that the poverty
line per capita in Peru during 2008 was around US$80.00.11 Moreover, I use education as a
control variable, considering it as an ordinal discrete variable, rather than incorporating its
categories as dummy regressors. In order to complement these models, I also use the categorical
variable “self-perception of poverty” as the response variable in logistic regression models.
9
I remember an old hacendado (landowner) who told me that he learned Quechua to rule the Indians (“Hay que
saber Quechua para darles órdenes” was his expression in Spanish).
10
The minimum monthly wage in August 2008 was US$190.16 (see www.inei.gob.pe).
11
See www.inei.gob.pe and www.exchange-rates.org/Rate/USD/PEN/12-31-2008 for the information about the
poverty line and the exchange rate to U.S. dollars in 2008, respectively.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
22
Secondly, I treat the ordinal variable income as a discrete response variable in ordinary
least squares (OLS) regression models with race/ethnic group dummy variables, considering the
average mean of each interval in U.S. dollars for the value of each category12 and then
transforming it to its natural logarithm. According to Fox (2008: 287), working with a discrete
response variable is only serious in extreme cases. I use F-tests to address nonlinearity (Fox
2008: 287), which suggest that there is no evidence of nonlinear associations between the
transformed income with the discrete education variable for the categories mestizo, Quechua and
Aymara. I also use Levine’s F-tests to address nonconstant error variance (Fox 2008: 290),
which suggest that there is no evidence of nonconstant error spread in the aforementioned OLS
models. These F-tests are presented in Appendix A.
RESULTS
Differences in Educational Attainment
** INSERT TABLE 2 HERE **
The results of the first set of regression models presented as odds ratios in Table 2 reveal
significant associations between low educational attainment and mestizo (negative), and low
educational attainment and Quechua (positive), even when other characteristics (gradually
incorporated into the models) are taken into account. Model 3a suggests that the odds of just
attaining complete primary school or less are 62 percent lower for mestizos compared with nonmestizos (1–.38). Additionally, Model 3b suggests that the odds of just attaining complete
primary school or less are 298 percent higher for Quechuas compared with mestizos (3.98–1).
12
The exception is the last category for which I used the value US$3,334. This is a high monthly income at the
national level, even far from the income of the middle class. In 2007, the average monthly incomes per household
of the socioeconomic groups A (high), B (upper middle) and C (middle) were approximately US$3,171.00,
US$801.00, and US$434.00, respectively (see http://www.ipsos-apoyo.com.pe/ estudio_ nse _peru). I converted
these averages to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate of 2.996 nuevos soles per dollar (see http://www.exchangerates.org/HistoricalRates/A/USD/12-31-2007).
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
23
Furthermore, the variable indigenous language is also significantly associated with low
educational attainment. Model 3b suggests that the odds of just attaining complete primary
school or less are 108 percent higher for indigenous languages speakers compared with those
who do not speak these languages (2.08–1). Nonetheless, there is no conclusive evidence about
the association between low educational attainment and being Aymara.
Only two of the second set of these regression models (2c and 2d) indicate significant
associations between high educational attainment and being mestizo or Quechua. Model 2c
suggests that the odds of attaining complete university or more are 56 percent higher for
mestizos compared with non-mestizos (1.56–1). Model 2d suggests that the odds of attaining
complete university or more are 46 percent lower for Quechuas compared with mestizos (1–.54).
After incorporating the variable indigenous language (Models 3c and 3d), the evidences of the
associations between high educational attainment and being mestizo or Quechua disappear at the
a-level of .05. However, I considered necessary to highlight that these odds ratios would be
relevant considering a laxer a-level of .1 in order to point out that they still make some sense.
Differences in Income and Perception of Poverty
** INSERT TABLE 3 HERE **
The regression coefficients presented as odds ratios in Table 3 indicate that there are
significant associations between earning the minimum monthly wage or less and being mestizo,
Quechua or Aymara. Model 2a suggests that the odds of earning the minimum monthly wage or
less are 36 percent lower for mestizos compared with non-mestizos (1–.64). In addition, Model
2b suggests that the odds of earning the minimum monthly wage or less are 65 percent higher for
Quechuas compared with mestizos (1.65–1) and 214 percent higher for Aymaras compared with
mestizos (3.14–1). After controlling for indigenous language (Models 3a and 3b), the evidences
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
24
of the associations between earning the minimum monthly wage or less and being mestizo,
Quechua and Aymara disappear at the a-level of .05. Again, I considered necessary to highlight
that the odds ratios for mestizos and Aymaras would be relevant considering a laxer a-level of .1
in order to point out that they still make some sense. It is also noticeable that the association
between earning the minimum monthly wage or less and speaking indigenous language is
significant. Model 3b suggests that the odds of earning the minimum monthly wage or less are
68 percent higher for indigenous languages speakers compared with those who do not speak
these languages (1.68–1).
** INSERT TABLE 4 HERE **
Complementing the models that predicted the odds of earning the minimum monthly
wage or less, the prediction of the self-perception of poverty corroborates the order within the
hierarchy. The regression models presented as odds ratios in Table 4 reveal that there are
significant associations between self-perceiving as poor and being mestizo, Quechua or Aymara.
Model 2a suggests that the odds of self-perceiving as poor are 44 percent lower for mestizos
compared with non-mestizos (1-.56). After controlling for indigenous language (Model 3b, with
standard errors adjusted by robust logistic regression), the odds of self-perceiving as poor are 85
percent higher for Quechuas compared with mestizos (1.85–1) and 358 percent higher for
Aymaras compared with mestizos (4.58–1).
** INSERT TABLE 5 HERE **
The final set of regression models (the OLS models) presented in Table 5 indicates that
there are significant associations between income and being mestizo, Quechua or Aymara.13
Average incomes by racial categories (Model 1) are US$315.10 for mestizos (exp(5.75)),
US$195.76 for Quechuas (exp(5.75–.48)), US$181.47 for Aymaras (exp(5.75–.55)), and
13
There was no evidence of significant interactions between the racial categories and education in these predictions.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
25
US$238.05 for Afro-Peruvians (exp(5.75–.28)). Accordingly, mestizos earn 61 percent more
than Quechuas, 74 percent more than Aymaras, and 32 percent more than Afro-Peruvians. This
is the only situation in which the effect for Afro-Peruvians is significant. Furthermore, after
controlling for education, sex, age, region, and indigenous language (Model 4), the average
incomes by racial categories (for the average values of education and age after centering their
respective variables, and zero values for the rest of the dummy variables) are US$370.95 for
mestizos (exp(5.92)), US$311.77 for Quechuas (exp(5.92–.17)), and US$268.32 for Aymaras
(exp(5.92–.32)). Accordingly, mestizos earn 19 percent more than Quechuas and 38 percent
more than Aymaras.
Here I make an exception integrating the Quechua and the Aymara ethnic groups.
Comparing the weighted average of the predicted incomes from Model 1 for Quechuas and
Aymaras (by the number of observations for each category), US$194.56, with the average
income of mestizos, mestizos earn 62 percent more than the grouped Quechuas and Aymaras.
Likewise, the weighted average of the predicted incomes from Model 4 (for the average values
of education and age, and zero values for the rest of the dummy variables) for Quechuas and
Aymaras is US$308.12. Thus, mestizos earn 20 percent more than the grouped Quechuas and
Aymaras. These estimates are not comparable with the numbers suggested by Ñopo et al. (2004)
cited above because of the different definitions of the racial categories, but they might serve as a
possible future reference, considering that the group of Quechuas and Aymaras is a different
concept than a more encompassing indigenous category. Following the discrimination/exclusion
frame suggested by Barrón (2008), 32 percent of the gap in Model 1 is due to discrimination (20
percent over 62 percent) and 68 percent, to exclusion.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
26
METHODOLOGICAL AND MEASUREMENT LIMITATIONS
Although I found significant evidence to statistically corroborate the order within the
racial hierarchy in urban Peru among the mestizo group and the ethnic groups Quechua and
Aymara, the evidence disappears in some of these models after the variable indigenous language
is incorporated. For this reason, Models 3c and 3d in Table 2 and Models 3a and 3b in Table 3
seem to be less interesting. Nevertheless, Models 3a and 3b in Table 3 are still relevant because
of the association between the indigenous language variable and earning the minimum monthly
wage or less. These associations do not strengthen the difference between the mestizo group and
the ethnic groups, but, like the models predicting low educational attainment, they point out the
disadvantage of the indigenous language speakers. Furthermore, Model 3c and 3d in Table 2
suggest that the odds of attaining complete university or more are significantly higher for those
who live in the highlands and jungle, often associated with the homeland of the less favored
Peruvians, compared to those who live in Lima. We have to consider the difference between
urban Lima and urban highlands and jungle. As the main big city, the former is much more
diverse and populous than the latter; thus, these results do not necessarily seem unreasonable.
Contrastingly, the effects for regions in the OLS models (Table 5) reveal that income and region
are significantly and negatively associated; thus, suggesting that attaining high education in Lima
has substantial economic advantages.
Another limitation is the discrete and categorical nature of the variable income. A
continuous variable income would have been more precise. Working with the averages of each
category does not account for the distribution of the income of the respondents within each
category. But, instead of disregarding this data because of this limitation, I still could find
enough evidence to explain the advantages of mestizos over the Quechuas and Aymaras; thus to
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
27
present these differences using this data, considering that data on race and ethnicity is still
scarce. In this sense, I attempted to take advantage of the availability of a race/ethnic variable in
a Peruvian survey with the purpose of complementing my updated explanation of the Peruvian
mestizo group with statistical evidence.
It is also necessary to mention that these models are incapable of suggesting reciprocal
relations between the response variables and the racial categories. Rather than showing evidence
of the continuation of the socioeconomic differences by race/ethnic group, these models only
depict these differences found at a certain moment. As suggested above, any sturdier statistical
approach on socioeconomic stratification by race/ethnic group would require more data, such as
the pollster’s perception race/ethnic variable, the racial/ethnic characteristics of the pollsters,
measures of intensity, larger sample sizes (for more precise estimates by race/ethnic group), and
an oversample of Afro-Peruvians.
CONCLUSIONS
These differences in socioeconomic outcomes by racial/ethnic categories are not
sufficient to depict in detail the prevalence of discrimination and exclusion in urban Peru.
Nevertheless, they reflect the relevance of the hierarchical order among mestizos, Quechuas and
Aymaras. This order can be explained by the historical colonial heritage and by the complex
evolution of the cultural/ideological beliefs that led to the legitimation of the mestizo racial
condition. I underline the importance of understanding mestizaje as a cultural and ideological
phenomenon. In Peru, the ideology of mestizaje served as the cultural vehicle that the Peruvian
elites have promoted to develop the consciousness of Peru as a project of nation-making.
Situating the beginning of this project in the 19th century context, the understanding of progress
was affected by the prevalent scientific racism. In this sense, the discourse of equality was just
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
28
partially inclusive because it influenced Peruvians to reject any links with an often embodied
indigenous culture. Nowadays, however, the mainstream beliefs still relates indigenousness to
an ontological inferior condition, encouraging in this way the negotiation of mestizaje to develop
a non-indigenous racial identity.
I argue that the embracement of the mestizo category in a survey reflects the racial
identity of the individual with emphasis on the cultural aspects that lead this individual to selfidentify as mestizo. Thus, my statistical analysis “portraits” the socioeconomic differences by
race/ethnic group with the purpose of explaining the relevance of the hierarchy, but this picture is
not sufficient to deal with the complications associated with racial identification. More
systematically obtained data and alternative/complementary models are necessary to frequently
adjust and update these estimations incorporating more restrictive definitions of racial categories
as well as their respective reliable indicators. In consequence, it might be possible to arrive at
more consistent estimates. Nonetheless, it is also very likely that the blurry racial/ethnic
boundaries and the fluidity are still going to be addressed with different theorizations and
definitions of indigenousness. Many respondents who self-identify as mestizos in this survey
still could fit into “more indigenous” categories, and offer alternative pictures.
According to these statistical models, the mestizo condition is only favorable in relation
to the indigenous one. Analyzing the socioeconomic differences by phenotype within the
mestizo group is still a pending topic, for which it is necessary to identify the physical
characteristics that enable the researcher to decompose this group.
The mestizo condition in Peru is an interesting example of how the historical
circumstances of a nation can contribute to the reformulation and legitimation of a
phenotypically diverse group as a racial/ethnic group. After a while, the boundaries for the local
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
29
notion of white also encompassed successful darker people, and the boundaries for the
indigenous group shrunk after some individuals could successfully negotiate the mestizo
condition. Although skin tone is still an important indicator of phenotype, it is not necessarily
the most important one at the moment of racial identification. Therefore, a better understanding
of Peruvian mestizaje could be useful to alternatively ponder cultural aspects in the evolution of
racial boundaries.
REFERENCES
Arnold, Denise Y.
2009
¿Indígenas u obreros? La construcción política de identidades en el Altiplano
boliviano. La Paz: Fundación UNIR Bolivia.
Barrón, Manuel
2008
“Exclusion and Discrimination as Sources of Inter-Ethnic Inequality in Peru.”
Economía (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú) XXXI(61): 51-80.
Beck, Scott H., Kenneth J. Mijeski and Meagan M. Stark
2011
“¿Qué es racismo? Awareness of Racism and Discrimination in Ecuador.” Latin
American Research Review 46(1): 102-125.
Benavides, Martín, Máximo Torero and Néstor Valdivia
2006 Pobreza, discriminación social e identidad: el caso de la población afrodescendiente
en el Perú. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development / The World Bank / GRADE.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
30
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo
2006 Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and The Persistence of Racial
Inequality in the United States. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, Rogers
2004 Ethnicity without groups. Harvard University Press.
Bruce, Jorge
2007 Nos habíamos choleado tanto: psicoanálisis y racismo. Lima: Universidad San
Martín de Porres.
Callirgos, Juan C.
1993 El racismo: la cuestión del otro (y de uno). Lima: DESCO.
Cánepa, Gisela
2008
“The Fluidity of Ethnic Identities in Peru.” CRISE Working Paper 46. University of
Oxford, UK. Retrieved October 14, 2011 (http://www.crise.ox.ac.uk/pubs/
workingpaper46.pdf).
Carrión, Julio F., Patricia Zárate, Mitchell A. Seligson.
2010
Cultura política de la democracia en Perú: consolidación democrática en las
Américas en tiempos difíciles. Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) –
America’s Barometer / IEP / Vanderbilt University / USAID.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
31
Casalino, Carlota
2005
“De cómo los chinos se transformaron y nos transformaron en peruanos: la
experiencia de los inmigrantes y su inserción en la sociedad peruana, 1849-1930.”
Investigaciones sociales: revista del instituto de investigaciones histórico sociales 15:
109-132. Retrieved September 28, 2009 (http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/media/1215/
20081006- chinos.pdf).
Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación (CVR)
2008 Hatun Willakuy: versión abreviada del informe final de la comisión de la verdad y
reconciliación.
Lima: Comisión de Entrega de la Comisión de la Verdad y
Reconciliación.
Cotler, Julio
1978
Clases, Estado y Nación en el Perú. Lima: IEP.
Degregori, Carlos I.
1995
“El estudio del otro: cambios en los análisis sobre etnicidad en el Perú.” In Perú
1964-1994: economía, sociedad y política, edited by Julio Cotler, 303-332. Lima:
IEP.
1999
“Multiculturalidad e interculturalidad.” In Educación y diversidad cultural, 63-69.
Peru: Ministerio de Educación. Retrieved August 12, 2009
(http://www.cholonautas.edu.pe/modulo/upload/Degregori1.pdf).
de la Cadena, Marisol
2000 Indigenous Mestizos: The Politics of Race and Culture in Cuzco, Peru, 1919-1991.
Durham: Duke University Press.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
32
Diez, Alejandro
1997
“Diversidades, alternativas y ambigüedades: instituciones, comportamientos y
mentalidades en la sociedad rural.” In Perú: el problema agrario en debate, 247-326.
Retrieved September 2, 2009 (http://www.cholonautas.edu.pe/modulo/upload/
AlejandroDiez.pdf).
Eagleton, Terry
1997 Ideología: una introducción. Barcelona: Paidós.
Essed, Philomena
1991
Understanding Everyday Racism: an Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Feagin, Joe R. and Eileen O’Brien
2003
White Men on Race: Power, Privilege, and the Shaping of Cultural Consciousness.
Beacon, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
Figueroa, Adolfo
2003 La sociedad sigma: Una teoría del desarrollo económico. Lima and Mexico D.F.:
Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and Fondo de Cultura
Económica.
2006
“El problema del empleo en una sociedad sigma.” CISEPA (Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú) Working Paper N° 249.
Flores Galindo, Alberto
1987 Buscando un inca: identidad y utopía en los andes. Lima: IAA.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
33
Fox, John
2008 Applied Regression Analysis and Generalized Linear Models. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Fuenzalida, Fernando
1970
“Poder, raza y etnia en el Perú contemporáneo.” In El indio y el poder en el Perú, 1587. Lima: IEP
García, María E.
2005 Making Indigenous Citizens: Identities, Education and Multicultural Development in
Peru. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Gootemberg, Paul
1995
“Población y etnicidad en el Perú republicano: algunas revisiones.” Lima: IEP.
Retrieved October 4, 2009 (http://www.iep.org.pe/textos/DDT/ddt71.pdf).
Hale, Charles R.
2002
“Does Multiculturalism Menace? Governance, Cultural Rights and the Politics of
Identity in Guatemala.” Journal of Latin American Studies 34(3): 485-524.
Huayhua, Margarita
2006 Discriminación y exclusión: políticas públicas de salud y poblaciones indígenas.
Lima: IEP.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI)
2006 Resultados de la Encuesta Nacional Continua ENCO I Semestre 2006. Lima: INEI.
Retrieved February 1, 2010 (http://www1.inei.gob.pe/biblioineipub/bancopub/Est/
Lib0692/libro.pdf).
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
34
2008 Perfil sociodemográfico del Perú. Lima: INEI. Retrieved October 20, 2009
(http://www1.inei.gob.pe/Anexos/libro.pdf)
2010
“Perú: incidencia de la pobreza total por área de residencia, 2001-2010.” Lima: INEI.
Retrieved June 27, 2011 (http://www.inei.gob.pe/perucifrasHTM/inf-soc/cuadro.asp?
cod=8331&name=pob21&ext=gif).
Matos Mar, José
[1984] 1986. Desborde popular y crisis del estado: el nuevo rostro del Perú en la década de
1980. Lima: IEP.
McCall, George J. and J.L. Simmons
1966 Identities and Interactions. New York, United States of America: The Free Press –
The Macmillan Company.
Moreno Figueroa, Mónica
2010
“Distributed intensities: Whiteness, Mestizaje and the Logics of Mexican Racism.”
Ethnicities 10(3): 387–401.
Muñoz, Ismael, Maritza Paredes and Rosemary Thorp
2006
“Collective Action, Conflict and Ethnicity in Peru.” CRISE Working Paper 24.
University of Oxford, UK. Retrieved October 14, 2011 (http://www.crise.ox.ac.uk/
pubs/workingpaper24.pdf).
Nugent, José G.
1992. El laberinto de la choledad. Lima: Fundación Ebert.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
35
Ñopo, Hugo, Jaime Saavedra and Máximo Torero
2004
“Ethnicity and Earnings in Urban Peru.” IZA Discussion Papers 980. Bonn,
Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor. Retrieved October 5, 2010
(http://ftp.iza.org/dp980.pdf).
Paredes, Maritza
2007
“Fluid Identities: Exploring Ethnicity in Peru.” CRISE Working Paper 40.
University of Oxford, UK. Retrieved October 14, 2011 (http://www.crise.ox.ac.uk/
pubs/workingpaper40.pdf).
Planas, Mariella and Néstor Valdivia
2007 Percepciones de discriminación y relevancia de lugares, modalidades y motivos
etnico/‘raciales’ en Lima y Cusco. Lima: GRADE. Retrieved January 24, 2010
(http://www.aes.org.pe/etnicidad/pdf/Percepciones.pdf).
Portocarrero, Gonzalo
1993 Racismo y mestizaje. Lima: SUR.
2004 Rostros criollos del mal: cultura y transgresión en la sociedad peruana. Lima: Red
para el Desarrollo de las Ciencias Sociales en el Perú.
2007 Racismo y mestizaje y otros ensayos. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Congreso del Perú.
Reyes, Esperanza and Néstor Valdivia
2010 Avanzando en la comprensión de las inequidades étnico/raciales en salud: ¿existen
prácticas de discriminación hacia la población indígena en los servicios del Estado?
Lima: GRADE. Retrieved July 10, 2011 (http://www.aes.org.pe/etnicidad/pdf/
Avanzando1.pdf).
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
36
Santa Ana, Otto
2002 Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public
Discourse. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Sulmont, David
2010
“Raza y etnicidad desde las encuestas sociales y de opinión: dime cuántos quieres
encontrar y te diré qué preguntar…” Paper for the workshop “La discriminación
social en el Perú: Investigación y reflexión,” organized by Centro de Investigación de
la Universidad del Pacífico, Lima, June 24, 2010. Retrieved October 14, 2011
(http://www.up.edu.pe/ciup/SiteAssets/Lists/JER_Jerarquia/EditForm/
David%20Sulmont.pdf).
Takenaka, Ayumi
2004
“The Japanese in Peru: History of Immigration, Settlement, and Racialization.” Latin
American Perspectives 31(3): 77-98.
Telles, Edward E.
2001
“Racial Ambiguity Among the Brazilian Population.” On-Line Working Paper
Series. UC Los Angeles California Center for Population Research.
Retrieved June 27, 2011 (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9182b929).
2009 Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Texeira, Mary T.
2003
“The New Multiracialism: an Affirmation of or an End to Race as We Know It?” In
New Faces in a Changing America:Multiracial Identity in the 21st Century, edited by
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
37
Loretta I. Winters and Herman L. DeBose, 21-37. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Torero, Máximo, Jaime Saavedra, Hugo Ñopo and Javier Escobal
2004
“The Economics of Social Exclusion in Peru: An Invisible Wall?” In Social
Inclusion and Economic Development in Latin America, edited by Mayra Bunivic,
Jacqueline Mazza and Ruthanne Deutsch, 221-246. Washington, D.C.: John Hopkins
University Press and Inter-American Development Bank.
Vargas Llosa, Mario
1990
“Questions of Conquest: What Columbus Wrote and What He Did Not.” Harper’s
(December): 45-53. Retrieved August 17, 2011 (http://harpers.org /archive/1990/
12/0007669).
Villareal, Andrés
2010
“Stratification by Skin Color in Contemporary Mexico.” American Sociological
Review 75(5): 652–678.
Wade, Peter
2004
“Images of Latin American Mestizaje and the Politics of Comparison.” Bulletin of
Latin American Research 23(3): 355-366.
2009 Race and Sex in Latin America. New York: Pluto Press.
Winant, Howard.
2004
The New Politics of Race: Globalism, Difference, Justice. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
Homogeneous Racial/Ethnic Group
38
Mestizo Group
Pollster's
Perception
Race/Ethnic Variable
Racialized Identity
Race/Ethnic
Variables
Racialized Identity
Self-reported
Race/Ethnic Construct
Race/Ethnic Construct
Figure 1. Traditional Race/Ethnic Variables as Indicators of Racial/Ethnic Group by Phenotype
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
39
Table 1. Summary Statistics for the Variables Used in the Analysis
Variables
Racial Categories
Mestizo
Quechua
Aymara
Amazonian
Black
White
Monthly Income
Less than $100
Between $100 and $200
Between $201 and $333
Between $334 and $500
Between $501 and $667
Between $668 and $1000
Between $1001 and $1667
Between $1668 and $3333
More than $3333
Education
None
Incomplete Primary School
Complete Primary School
Incomplete Secondary School
Complete Secondary School
Incomplete Technical Education
Complete Technical Education
Incomplete University
Complete University or More
Self-Perception of Poverty
Female
a
Age
Region
Lima-Callao (reference category)
Coast
Highlands and Jungle
Speak Indigenous Language
a
Minimum 18, Maximum 93.
Frequency
Percentage (or Mean)
697
283
26
51
38
66
60%
24%
2%
4%
3%
6%
111
290
326
187
100
80
46
14
6
10%
25%
28%
16%
9%
7%
4%
1%
1%
22
67
60
125
350
99
192
159
161
110
627
2%
5%
5%
10%
28%
8%
16%
13%
13%
9%
51%
-
37.79
535
355
345
270
43%
29%
28%
22%
4.7437***
2.9679***
.2853
1161
5.8363***
2.2450**
2.8604***
.3015
1161
2.7313***
1.0861***
2.6049***
1.0841***
.2442
1161
2.7898***
1.0830***
.2708***
.3817***
.2630
1161
3.8685***
2.1771
2.2254
2.2386
.4503
2.7319***
1.0856***
.3055
1161
5.3339***
2.5968**
5.8009***
2.8470
2.8077†
2.3014
.6243
2.8616***
1.0873***
Complete Primary School or Less
Model 2a
Model 3a
Model 1b
Model 2b
.3496***
Model 1a
†p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests)
Racial Categories
Mestizo
Quechua
Aymara
Amazonian
Black
White
Female
Age
Region
Coast
Highlands and Jungle
Speak Indigenous Language
Pseudo R-Squared
N
Variables
Table 2. Odds Ratios Predicting Educational Attainment
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
5.9126***
2.2526**
2.0749*
.3116
1161
3.9757***
1.8759
2.9064†
2.2546
.6821
2.8595***
1.0850***
Model 3b
.0246
912
1.0062
1.0258***
1.3170
Model 1c
.0369
912
.9485
1.8764**
.9376
2.0318**
.7289
.0386
912
1.0374
1.0281***
1.4325†
.0288
912
.6690†
1.8537
.6751
.9634
.2973
1.0108
1.0256***
.0410
912
.9490
1.9141**
.5381*
1.2651
.5404
1.0521
.7092
1.0395
1.0265***
Complete University or More
Model 3c
Model 1d
Model 2d
1.0400
1.0268***
1.5564*
Model 2c
40
.9370
2.0528**
.7059
.0427
912
.6246†
1.5378
.5316
1.0420
.6954
1.0373
1.0278***
Model 3d
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
41
Table 3. Odds Ratios Predicting the Odds of Earning the Minimum Monthly Wage or Less
Variables
Model 1a
Model 2a
Model 3a
Model 1b
Model 2b
Model 3b
.5644***
.6444**
.7528
1.9270***
1.6482**
1.2776
.6276***
1.4990**
4.8892**
1.2038
1.5150
1.2339
.6237***
1.4308*
3.1410*
.9669
1.6972
1.3477
.6212***
1.5040**
2.3714
.9945
1.7133
1.3931
.6232***
1.5055**
.9904
.9883*
.9899*
.9892*
.9876*
1.4589*
2.7369***
1.5525*
2.4233***
1.7181**
.1737
1092
1.4662*
2.6565***
1.5324*
2.4312***
1.6837*
.1758
1092
Racial Categories
Mestizo
Quechua
Aymara
Amazonian
Black
White
Education
Female
Age
Region
Coast
Highlands and Jungle
Speak Indigenous Language
Pseudo R-Squared
N
.6292***
1.4011*
†
.9909
.1450
1092
.6252***
1.4869**
†
.1684
1092
†p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests)
†
.1512
1092
.1720
1092
†
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
42
Table 4. Odds Ratios Predicting Self-Perception of Poverty
Variables
a
Model 1a
Model 2a
Model 3a
.5215**
.5623*
.6341
a
Model 1b
Model 2b
Model 3b
2.0565**
5.8491***
1.1801
1.8890
.6822
1.2999
1.0389***
1.9607*
4.8794**
1.0959
1.9509
.7378
1.3113
1.0386***
1.8462*
4.5759**
1.1025
1.9438
.7446
1.3108
1.0381***
1.5162
1.7688*
1.5296
1.7274*
1.1201
.0891
1155
Racial Categories
Mestizo
Quechua
Aymara
Amazonian
Black
White
Female
Age
Region
Coast
Highlands and Jungle
Speak Indigenous Language
Pseudo R-Squared
N
1.2504
1.0389***
.0668
1155
†
1.2715
1.0391***
1.2717
1.0376***
1.4950
2.0018**
1.5574
1.8239*
1.4109
.0798
1155
.0776
1155
†p < .07; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests)
a
Adjusted standard errors using robust logistic regression.
.0815
1155
.0889
1155
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
43
Table 5. OLS Regression Models Predicting Income (LN Income)
Variables
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
-.4760***
(.0590)
-.5518**
(.1653)
-.0846
(.1201)
-.2804*
(.1389)
-.0391
(.1086)
-.3012***
(.0584)
-.5823***
(.1455)
.0253
(.1059)
-.1207
(.1226)
.0269
(.0957)
.1928***
(.0108)
-.2304***
(.0551)
-.3869**
(.1454)
.1415
(.1052)
-.1781
(.1192)
.0089
(.0931)
.1905***
(.0112)
-.1441**
(.0423)
.0023
(.0015)
-.1738**
(.0638)
-.3239*
(.1497)
.1358
(.1051)
-.1781
(.1191)
.0011
(.0931)
.1893***
(.0112)
-.1438**
(.0423)
.0026
(.0015)
-.1525**
(.0517)
-.4138***
(.0537)
-.1607**
(.0519)
-.3915***
(.0551)
-.1184
(.0675)
4.8944***
(.1030)
.3138
1092
4.8942***
(.1029)
.3151
1092
a
Racial Categories
Quechua
Aymara
Amazonian
Black
White
Education
Female
Age
Region
Coast
Highlands and Jungle
Speak Indigenous Language
b
Constant
Adjusted R-Squared
N
5.7529***
(.0317)
.0593
1092
4.7575***
(.0625)
.2710
1092
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests)
Note: Standard errors in parentheses.
a
Mestizo is the reference category.
b
After centering education and age, the coefficient for the constant in Model 4
is 5.9161***.
F = .28
df1 = 8
df2 = 257
pF = .9727
F = .67
df1 = 8
df2 = 646
pF = .7164
Levene's F-Tests for Nonconstant Error Variance in Y i = α+βX i +ε i
Note: j refers to the categories for education.
(One-Way ANOVA of Z ij ≡ |Y ij – Ỹ j | )
(model Y i = α’+γ 1 D i1 +γ 2 D i2 +…+γ j-1 D i j-1 +ε’ i versus Y i = α+βX i +ε i )
F = .94
df1 = 7
df2 = 257
pF = .4739
Quechua
Racial Categories
F = 1.74
df1 = 7
df2 = 646
pF = .0960
Mestizo
44
Incremental F-Tests for Nonlinearity of the Relationship Between Income and Education
APPENDIX. Diagnostics for OLS Regression Models with Discrete Data
The Socioeconomic Advantages of Mestizos in Urban Peru
df1 = 7
df2 = 17
pF = .6062
F = .79
F = 1.11
df1 = 6
df2 = 17
pF = .3946
Aymara
Fly UP