The Selectivity of the Capitalist State: Chicanos and Economic Development

Abstract

ALTHOUGH the 1980s were heralded as the Decade of the Hispanics (Time, October 16, 1978), recent data indicate that this assertion is far from accurate in that increasing numbers of Chicano children are receiving an inadequate education; Chicano unemployment rates remain higher than the national norm; hunger and poverty appear endemic to the Chicano community; and while Chicanos' median income has increased, it has failed to keep up with that of middle-America. Some would argue that the disadvantaged social and economic situation of Chicanos is simply an artifact of America's social and economic structures which will rectify the problem over the long run. However, one can easily argue the opposite: that the social, economic and political structures of the United States operate and interact in such a manner as to create, maintain, and replenish a permanent of which Chicanos represent a significant proportion (Barrera 1979). Although many factorspolitical, social and economiccan be identified as contributing to the underclass status of Chicanos, the concern here is to uncover how the political processes and governmental structures influencing economic development in the Southwest play a significant role in creating and maintaining the economically disadvantaged position of their Chicano populations. The conception that racism is the primary or leading cause for the social, economic, and political subjugation of Chicanos is only marginally accurate in light of the structural analysis offered here. American political paradigms, pluralism and elite or power structure theories, inadequately elucidate the oppressive effects that the social and political structures have on the Chicano community's growth process (Friedland and Alford 1985). Recently, the works of Mollenkopf (1983) and Swanstrom (1985) have attempted to construct frameworks which identify the systemic variables affecting economic development efforts in large American cities. Although both efforts appear to break new theoretical ground they also appear as sophisticated elaborations of both pluralism and systems theory.