Development Towns in Israel: the Role of Community in Creating Ethnic Disparities in Labor Force Characteristics'

Home , Development town, Rosh HaAyin, Yavne, Yeruham

Development Towns in Israel: The Role of Community in Creating Ethnic Disparities in Labor Force Characteristics'

SeymourSpilerman Universityof Wisconsin

Jack Habib BrookdaleInstitute of Gerontology and Adult Human Development,Jerusalem

This paper investigatesthe contributionof communityto ethnic stratificationin Israel. We show that "developmenttowns," a cate- goryof new settlementsestablished to achieve populationdispersal and immigrantabsorption, have influenced(a) the areal distributionsof differentethnic (country-of-origin) groups, (b) the tendency foreach groupto be concentratedin certainindustries, and (c) the occupationalopportunities available to the membersof an ethnic population.We also reviewthe relevanceof thisanalysis for understandingethnic stratification in America.

INTRODUCTION Urban communitiesin Israel have not attractedparticular attention as researchsites. In part, this is because thereare more novel settlement patterns,found only in that country,such as the kibbutz (agricultural collective)and the moshav (small-holders'cooperative). These formsof ruralcommunity have been studiedintensively, in regardto workorgani- zation (Spiro 1970), productivityof the economy(Barkai 1974), decision making(Cohen 1968), familystructure (Talmon 1972; Weintrauband Shapira 1971), and child-rearingpractices (Bettelheim 1969). It is the case, however,that Israeli urban settlementsprovide convenient sites for investigatinga numberof topicsthat are of interestto urban specialists, especiallyissues which relate to planned communitydevelopment. The country'snew towns,which were establishedin large numbersbeginning in the late 1940s,permit one to evaluate the variousstrategies that have

1 This research was supported by the Brookdale Institute in Jerusalemand by the Institute for Research on Poverty at the Universityof Wisconsin. The firstauthor would like to thank the GuggenheimFoundation and the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin for funds to spend a year in Israel. Dr. Moshe Sicron, directorof the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics,kindly made available to us a copy of the 1961 census tape. We also wish to acknowledge the commentsby Professors Dov Weintrauband Judah Matras on an earlier version of this manuscript.We take responsibility,of course, for all views expressedin the paper.

AJS Volume 81 Number4 781

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology been employedin attemptingto put togethera viable communityde novo: whichindustries can be implantedsuccessfully in outlyingareas, what mixesof settlerbackgrounds will producesocially integrated communities, and whatkinds of local politicalinstitutions tend to operateeffectively in the earlystages of developmentof a new settlement. The patternof Israel's urbangrowth has been a matterof much con- cern to governmentalauthorities. At the timeof the country'sfounding, in 1948, 63% of the populationwas concentratedin threemain cities- Tel Aviv,Haifa, and Jerusalem-andin theirimmediate environs. Exacer- batingthis populationimbalance, a vast immigrationin the early years of the state threatenedto createmassive congestion in the urban centers, taxingtheir physical plants, the absorptionpotentials of theirlabor mar- kets,and theirsocial servicecapabilities, unless many of the immigrants couldbe motivatedto settleoutside the metropolitan regions. Israel is a societywith a considerabletradition of social planningand centralizeddecision making, dating to the imperativesof existencein the prestateperiod. The government,consequently, was in a positionto under- take far-reachingdecisions concerning population redistribution, and did so withinmonths of the establishmentof the state,committing extensive resourcesto thistask. The instrumentto accomplishpopulation redistribution was to be a networkof small and medium-sizedurban settlements, locatedaway fromthe denselypopulated coastal plain; these settlements have sincebecome known as "developmenttowns." The new townshave been a focusof muchconcern. They are populated by recentimmigrants, particularly from less developedlands. Many are isolated,outside the main streamof Israeli societygeographically as well as socially.For thesereasons, the settlementsconstitute, in manyrespects, a secondand inferiorIsrael. What we wish to accomplishhere in regard to the townsis twofold:we want to describetheir evolution and their problems,and in doing so we intendto view themas strategicsites for addressingan issue in ethnicstratification the effectwhich community can have in producingethnic disparities in labor marketcharacteristics. Specifically,we considerhow the creationof these settlementshas influenced (a) the areal distributionsof differentethnic (country-of-origin) groups,(b) the tendencyfor each groupto be concentratedin certainindustries,and (c) the occupationalopportunities available to the members of an ethnicpopulation. In the concludingsection we reviewthe relevance of theseconsiderations for understanding the role of communityin ethnic stratificationin America.

DEVELOPMENT TOWNS IN ISRAEL Settlementpatterns in the Yishuv,the Jewishcommunity in prestatePal- estine,were influenced by an ideologywhich invested land reclamationand

782

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel Jewishmanual labor withgreat significance. The erectionof agricultural settlementswas thereforeconsistent with the tenetsof labor Zionism,as well as havinga basis in strategicconsiderations, in that it established Jewishrights to land in outlyingregions through purchase and cultivation. Yet, as Cohen (1970, pp. 2-7) has remarked,in moderntimes the Jewish populationin Palestinewas nevermore than 30% rural,a fact that was ignoredin earlyZionist writings, in whichlittle attention was givento the roleof citiesin a moderneconomy, or to theirpotential importance in the statewhich was to be created. This situationchanged abruptly following the establishmentof Israel. In the threeyears subsequentto the terminationof the Britishmandate, an influxof hundredsof thousandsof immigrants,fleeing from persecution in Europeand theArab countries, more than doubled the population of the state.In prioroccupations, these immigrants had been predominantlyarti- sans and smallshopkeepers; they came to Israel as refugees,not out of an ideologicalconviction which mightsustain them while adapting to the harshlife of an agriculturallaborer. It was soon recognizedby governmental authorities2that residentialquarters would have to be constructedin large numbers,in urban areas, to accommodatethe immigrants.In order to relievethe congestionin Tel Aviv and Haifa resultingfrom very rapid populationgrowth, and open thehinterland to settlement,industrialization, and mineralexploitation, the governmentadopted a policy of establish- ing new townsprincipally outside the peripheryof Israel's metropolitan centers.3

2 "The authoritiesdid not turn their effortsto urban developmentout of their own free choice; this decision was forcedupon them by the circumstancesof immigration and settlementwhich emerged after the establishmentof the state" (Cohen 1970, p. 33). Withintwo monthsof the creationof Israel, a National Planning Department was opened in the Ministryof Labor. Its principalobjective was to initiatecomprehen- sive settlementplanning on a country-widebasis, as well as on a regional and local level (Brutzkus 1964, pp. 12-13). The mechanics of immigrantsettlement involves the cooperation of a private institutionand several governmentalministries. The Jewish Agency, which fulfilled the tasks of refugeetransportation and settlementduring the mandate period, is still responsiblefor attractingnew immigrantsand for the initial stages of their absorption. The responsibilityfor planningand developingnew towns is now divided mainly among threeministries-Labor, Housing, and Commerceand Industry-coordinatedby an interministerialcommittee (Lichfield 1971, 1:3.2-3.10). 3The dependenceof immigrantson public agencies offereda unique opportunityfor alteringthe settlementpattern existing at the creation of the state. Between 1949 and 1967 seven schemes for population dispersalwere drawn up and revised by the Plan- ning Department,each scheme looking 10-20 years into the future.As summarizedin Lichfield (1971, 1:3.7), the thrustof the government'spolicy has been to (a) reduce the urban concentrationin the coastal belt between Tel Aviv and Haifa, (b) disperse settlementsthroughout the countryin orderto develop the land, (c) establishbalanced regions through an integrated hierarchical structure of interdependenturban and rural settlements,and (d) aid in absorbing and assimilatinglarge numbers of immi- grantsby providinghousing and employment.

783

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology Thereis no consistentdefinition of a developmenttown in the literature on Israeli settlements,though the intentionis to signifyurban settlements whichlie outsidemetropolitan regions and whichwere establishedby de- sign,since 1948,and withconsiderable governmental assistance.4 The 1961 Israel Census of Population,the most recentcensus available, does not employthis term and distinguishesinstead between veteran and new communities."New" communitiesinclude those foundedafter 1948, whether in outlyingareas or in the suburbanperiphery, as well as a numberof oldersettlements which have experiencedthe majorportion of theirpopu- lationgrowth since the creationof Israel. Accordingto the census,38 new settlements5existed in 1961,with a combinedpopulation of 398,000.Other governmentalagencies use the term"development town" to referto new communitiesdistant from metropolitan areas; yet there are differences withrespect to the settlementseach includesin this category.A report writtenfor the Ministryof Labor (Smith 1972,p. 17) lists 24 communities,6with 246,000 residents in 1961. A reportprepared for the Ministry of Housing (Lichfield1971, 2:1) records25 settlements,with 289,000 inhabitantsin 1961. Nongovernmentalresearchers also differin terminol- ogy and settlementclassification: Spiegal (1966, p. 34) cites 24 "new towns,"with a combinedpopulation of 271,000in 1961. Because suburban settlementsare excluded,her specificationcorresponds to the notionof a developmenttown. Amiran and Shachar (1969, table 4) list 28 developmenttowns as of 1961,with a totalpopulation of 312,000. The differencesamong these classificationsresult from decisions con- cerningwhich of the communitiesexisting before 1948 shouldbe consid-

4 In many instances the founding of a new town was preceded by comprehensive planningof physical facilities,industrial composition, and population growth. During the years of mass immigration,the tendency was to provide refugeeswho lacked skills or capital with housing and employmentin these settlements.Various governmental agencies were involved in building the towns, and attractingindustrial enter- prisesthrough the provisionof tax incentivesand loans on favorableterms. Politically, local municipalresponsibility has generallybeen slow to develop, all decisions initially restingwith the centralgovernment. For many years afterwarda division of power over municipalaffairs existed between the centraland local authorities(Lichfield 1971, 1:4.12-4.15; Matras 1973, pp. 5-9). 5 This numberrefers to urban communities(31) and large villages (seven). An urban communityis one containingmore than 2,000 inhabitantsand having at least two- thirdsof its labor forcenot engaged in agriculture.A large village is a settlementwith more than 2,000 inhabitantswhich does not satisfythe industrialrequirement. Large villages are includedin our tabulationbecause five of the seven settlementsappear on some list of developmenttowns. Settlementdefinitions are reportedin Israel Central Bureau of Statistics(1966, pp. 21-23; 1965, pp. 61-63). 6The population figureswhich follow are adjusted to 1961 so that they will be comparable to the census values. For the same reason, settlementswith fewerthan 2,000 inhabitantsin 1961 have been deleted from the tabulations.

784

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel ered "developmental,"and which settlementsthat were initiallyin this categoryshould be viewedas havingoutgrown the label, in that theyno longerreceive extensive financial assistance from the centralgovernment. Wherewe are in a positionto calculateindices from census data, we will use thelist of communitiesproposed by Amiranand Shachar.Their defini- tioncovers settlements that were established after 1948, whetherfounded on entirelynew sitesor broughtinto being as a resultof an influxof new populationsinto townsthat had been vacated by Arab residents(Amiran and Shachar 1969, p. 1). Suburbsare omittedfrom the list,although one town (Tirat HaKarmel), whichnow is in the Haifa metropolitanregion, is included.Also, they retain settlements that have progressedsuccessfully, a considerationthat is important,since we wishto discussethnic composition and industrialstructure in the fullarray of communitieswhich were planned to achieve populationredistribution and immigrantabsorption. Wherewe referto statisticsfrom other studies, the developmenttowns to which the figurespertain will be somewhatdifferent from Amiran and Shachar'slist, in accordancewith the comments in thepreceding paragraph. The growthof developmenttowns, and the impactwhich these settle- mentshave had on the distributionof the urbanpopulation, is reportedin table 1. The entriesin the secondrow reveal that the considerablepopula- tion expansionin the countrysince 1948 has been accompaniedby an increasein proportionurban, from 73.3% to 84.4%. The declinein the earlyyears of the timeseries, incidentally, is due to the establishmentof many developmenttowns duringthis interval; initially,they were too small to be categorizedas urbanin the census.For our purpose,a more importanttrend concerns the massivepopulation increase in the developmenttowns and the populationredistribution resulting from this growth (last row), even duringa period when all urban communitieswere expanding.Indeed, the last two rowsof the table, in combination,suggest that the redistributionpolicies of the governmentwere most successful, since the proportionof the urban populationresiding outside the three metropolitanareas increasedfrom 14% in 1948 to 48% in 1972,with the bulk of thischange deriving from the growthof developmenttowns.

The Concentrationof ImmigrantGroups in DevelopmentTowns The growthof new towns,and the populationredistribution which was occasionedby this growth,did not arise principallyfrom internal migration. Rather,new immigrantswere encouragedto settlein development towns,with subsidizedhousing, low-interest loans, and the promiseof employmentserving as inducements.The outcomeof thisprocess was that,

785

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions C13 w ll 06 C Is 1-4 00 C'l 0 pq

C13 U C', in C', C', oo o 0 in oo C C, -4 C; 00 C'l q Otv

Cd C)

C's

t- 00 C" "D C> O C13 10 >,4 00 C C; C 14C"l 6O o0 C"l C)rcr. C13

C13

C: C13 C C 06 6 6 4) -I -4 Cq C-') O U) C"l t- A 1 u 00 C'3

C', O t- O CN CN O 00 U) C,3 (1) (D tv cl C; C 06 C 06 C; 03 t- Cq -9 .- 2 0 O pq C'3

Cd m cp

C'3 ir) 110 00 c'I 0 t- Ir; 4 . . 00 . \0 0 r, C; cr C', 0 C13 \0 0 En O' U 0 C13

C13 4) ir) C', cn C13 W= 00 C;\.C) 00 I- C C'Jcn 5. w Cq In t- C C"l -tv

4) C130 tv 'o cli

C13 t- t- "t C" c"I 'r) 00 C13 m C; C'3 cn ,n4 -4 -4 IX >, 0 .0 I cn C13 P4 p = o -t o 41 ::5 4 o -tv z m :J z C,3 oo cn CNI ,o 00 o, o,"t t- C; C13C13

\0 cd 0 0 t- rn X Cj

cli C13 P cli I bo Cl) W, 2 o C,3 =0 &.. 0 PQ

Cd 'n PP w PQ C,3 Cd o

0 Cd 0 0 u .-E 0 , Cd t4 E. cd 0 Cd 0 &.. 'm En C's 4- &..tn 0 0 C's 0 Cd tn Cd cd 43 c"s bJD W) 0 u V V V o cd cd lc :D, 4-) 4-i Cld ;-4 P4 c > cd 0:) gu 4-' ;-4 ;-4 Cl) 0 (a) (a) 4 P4 P4 0

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel in 1961, 67%oof thepopulation7 in developmenttowns consisted of recent immigrantsto thecountry, arrivals since 1948,in comparisonwith 45% in thetotal Israeli population (36% in themain cities). Such greatconcentra- tionsof recentimmigrants, in communitiesthat are also growingrapidly, could be expectedto createmassive problems of acculturation,and in the provisionof housing,suitable jobs, and the manysocial serviceswhich a refugeepopulation would require.Very great problems still existin these towns;some will be discussedin theconcluding section. Yet the settlement programwas conductedwithin a frameworkof extensiveassistance to the new communitiesby the centralgovernment. Also, the factsthat Zionist ideologyencouraged the ingatheringof Jews,that many of the "veterans" were themselvesimmigrants in an earlierdecade, and that Israeli culture was in the processof beingmolded during the initialyears of the state, made fortolerance of the varietyof life-stylesbrought by the immigrants, and a willingnessto accept themas Israelis even while they were only marginallyacculturated to the moresof the society. We wishto focuson how developmenttowns have patternedthe industry affiliationsof the immigrantgroups and influencedtheir consequent occupationaldistributions. For this purposeit will be usefulto delineate two aspectsof residencelocation: representationof a populationgroup in a settlementcategory, and variabilityof its concentrationamong settle- mentswithin the category.The latterfactor speaks to the possibilitythat individualcommunities may "specialize"in particularindustrial activities. In regardto thefirst point, we notethat not only are developmenttowns places of concentrationof recentimmigrants, but that great differences existbetween these settlements and otherurban communities with respect to theorigins of theirforeign-born populations. Continent-of-origin figures are reportedin columns1 and 2 of table 2. From the entriesin the two top panelsit is evidentthat the population in developmenttowns has been drawn,to a very considerableextent, from among Asian-Africanimmi- grants.They comprise66%o of the foreignborn, versus 29%Ofor Euro- peans. In referenceto their percentagesin Israel, Asian-Africansare overrepresentedby a factorof 1.65,Europeans underrepresented by a factor of 0.54 (1.00 = representationat the same rate as in the total population). This suggeststhat the industrialstructures of the townsshould be especiallypertinent to understandingthe labor forcecharacteristics of Asian-Africanimmigrants. An equallyimportant matter concerns differences among settlement types in regardto the variabilityof representationof the immigrantstreams in the individualcommunities. This point refersto the fact that the continent-of-origingroups are notdispersed evenly, but tendto be concentrated

7 Since many of the Israeli born would be young children,the percentageforeign born in the adult populationis much greater.

787

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4-+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~000 H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~E~

0" n t 0C1)% 'd0 0q-iC

0 0< 0 co 7-

C.-) -~~4~4 C0- 0d>4 ' -O04-4 '40 - e4-" ''4 ' 04 .4 4- '

0 to~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C N 0'-~~~~~~~b t4..040040el) H.o 00 2

W > -4 ) 0 44 0 cl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ o 01 :.N > 0 0 0Od H a 4i o- t- O'0 -- N Oc 0402 .o C, 4 4- E0 4 0 4i 0 44 4)>q 0 -13 4

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4444422 N 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~0 44'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~C~- 0 Go , "O.c00~0 Z 2 0'44 '~~~~~~44 .4-0C 0 el) r' = 04 Oo\ 4-4 404 4 ,0 Z 2 ft*

94 4)~~~~~~4- 44 N .0~~0C 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C1 ( - 044~~~4> 4440~~~~0404~~~~4) t-.4-(-.4(-.4 z ~~~~~~~~~~t t>o. .0 > as~~~~~~~~~~~444 .0 0 co40 .0U) C13 :0 C '0 c 0,

44 4 .2~~~4)4) 0444) If N >4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~o0'.f~~~~~~~~n-o'400I -4 r> - .0 ) . C-4 U ~ ~ 4- -40"o4o '04.0 4 '- .044~~~ ~~ < 0 . 00 'Oel 0 ++ '0- 'Z 40

'-4-U .0 4-1 0 0-'-d44in in0' Cy, no4o0 4 0 C3 0 C's 020444- '0e4 0U 0 +4 44~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10,-= ~ 0' 4-440 Z' 44) -'2.20 -U ' '0 44 2 << 44--4)~~~ 442 ~~~~~~~~~~~) :5 4 (4 ~~~~~~~~-4-4 44) 4)042> -

.4)4) 444~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C~04 c -

) N (4 oo -4 )4)

1.0 00 11U (7s .-1 0 .0

++ 0~~~~N.

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel in somesettlements and underrepresentedin others. To measurevariability we constructedan index that is analogousto the coefficientof variation (Stigler1966, pp. 294-95). For an arrayof percentagevalues {p} we as- sess variability by the statistic IV(p) - SD(p) )//p:(1 - ). This index compensatesfor the fact that the standarddeviation of a percentage (SD [p] ) is constrainedto be smallwhen the averageis verylarge or very small, and therebyenables comparisonsto be made among sets of per- centageswith different means. Indices of variationin theproportion Asian- Africanare presentedfor the varioussettlement categories in the bottom panel of column1.8 The largevalue fordevelopment towns (0.33) means that thereare greaterdifferences in ethniccomposition among settlements in thiscategory than among either veteran communities or suburbansettle- ments.The relevanceof thispoint is thatdisparities in industrialstructure whichexist among development towns may correspondto the variationin locationof thecontinent groups, thereby exposing Asian-African and Euro- pean settlersto verydifferent industries and occupationalopportunities. Continentof originis hardlya sensitivemeasure of culturalhomogene- ity, althoughthis distinctionis a salient one in Israeli life. Countryof originis a moreimportant consideration; it signifieslanguage and life-style, and it is at thislevel that ethnicidentity is commonlyspecified. Columns 3-12 reportrepresentation values by settlementtype for several ethnic groups (top panel), and these figuresstandardized by the respectivena- tionalpercentages (middle panel). It is apparentfrom the latterthat each Asian-Africangroup is overrepresentedin developmenttowns (entry > 1) and, with few exceptions,underrepresented in metropolitancenters and suburbs.The reversesituation characterizes the locationsof most Euro- pean populations.Superimposed upon thispattern are some sizable differencesamong the individual ethnic groups: the concentrationof Moroccan- Algerian-Tunisianimmigrants in developmenttowns is especiallyhigh (2.48 times theirrepresentation in Israel); the presenceof Yemenites (1.10) indicatesnear equalityto theirpercentage in the country,while immigrantsfrom Germany-Austria are grosslyunderrepresented in the towns(0.25). The variationin ethnicgroup concentration also speaks to the matter of labor forcecharacteristics of these populations.The index values reportedin the lowerpanel of table 2 show,in everyinstance, greater vari- abilityamong developmenttowns than among settlementsin the other categories.It also appears that the individualAsian-African ethnics are apt to concentratein certaintowns, while the Europeangroups are more evenlydispersed (compare cols. 3-7 with 8-12, last row). (Indeed, the

8 Since IV(p) = IV(1 -p), the index of variation is identical for the two continentof-origingroups, except for the effectof the origin-unknownpopulation.

789

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology indexvalues forthe Asian-Africanpopulations tend to be largerin every settlementcategory.) As we notedfor the continent-of-origingroups, these observationssuggest that whateverdifferences in industrialstructure are presentamong developmenttowns, they may have considerableimpact on the industryaffiliations of a numberof the ethnics,by exposingthem disproportionatelyto particularlabor marketopportunities. Any such effect should be greaterfor the Asian-Africanpopulations, because these groupsare overrepresentedin the towns,and because theyexhibit a larger variationthan Europeans in concentrationby settlement.

Time of Immigrationand Concentrationin ParticularDevelopment Towns Althoughit is a digressionfrom our main theme-to show the impactof developmenttowns on the industrialand occupationalopportunities of the variousethnics-it is of interestto understandhow the concentrationof individualimmigrant groups in certainsettlements came about. The rele- vant factsare: (a) the ethnicgroups arrived in Israel in largenumbers in differentyears, and (b) the developmenttowns were establishedand experiencedtheir periods of maximumpopulation growth at differenttimes. The tendencyfor the country-of-origin groups to differin yearof arrival to Israel is documentedin table 3. The firsttwo columnsreport immigrationto Israel by continentof origin;column 3 showsthe ratioof European to Asia-Africanimmigrants. There are several clustersof years during whichnew arrivalscame disproportionatelyfrom one continent.The bulk of immigrantsin the prestateperiod came fromEuropean countries,a trendwhich continued into the first two years of thestate's existence, when the survivorsof the Nazi exterminationcamps comprisedthe majorityof newcomers.Following this period therewas an eight-yearinterval when immigrantscame fromthe Arab countriesat approximatelythree times the rate fromEurope. The ancientJewish communities of Iraq, Yemen, and Adenmoved to Israel,practically in theirentireties, in theseyears. Several additionalshifts followed in the dominanceof a continentas a sourceof immigrants.These shiftsfrequently accompanied political upheavals in particularlands, and reflectedthe impactof thoseevents on theirJewish populations.9 The dominantperiod of arrivalof immigrantsfrom the individualcoun- triesis morerelevant to theissue of ethnicgroup concentration in different towns.In columns4-7 we presentimmigration distributions for a few

" Immigrationfrom Morocco intensifiedafter it achieved independencein 1956. Follow- ing the Hungarian revolutionin 1956, tens of thousandsof Jews fled to Austria; many eventuallycame to Israel. Recent immigrationfrom Poland is related to the introduction of an anti-Semiticcampaign followingthe Six-Day War in 1967.

790

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel

TABLE 3

IMMIGRATION TO ISRAEL BY CONTINENT AND SELECTED COUJNTRIES OF ORIGIN, 1932-72 (THOUSANDS)

CONTINENT COUNTRY Asia- Europe Africa (1)1(2) Romania Bulgaria Iraq Iran YEAR (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1932-38 ...... 175.7 17.5 10.49 10.6 1.1 2.9 1.7 1939-45 ...... 63.0 14.2 4.50 8.9 3.2 1.5 0.4 1946-48* 48.5 2.0 24.25 16.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 1948t-49 ..... 200.3 123.7 1.61 31.3 35.1 1.7 1.8 1950-51...... 136.0 207.0 0.66 86.6 2.1 121.6 20.0 1952-53 ...... 10.3 25.1 0.40 3.8 0.8 1.6 5.3 1954-55 ...... 5.9 49.8 0.12 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 1956-57 ...... 48.8 77.9 0.63 1.6 0.2 0.4 1.8 1958-59 ..... 30.7 20.0 1.55 17.6 0.2 0.2 7.2 1960-61 ...... 42.3 29.4 1.45 28.8 0.3 0.3 1.4 1962-63 ...... 34.1 91.2 0.37 20.0 0.2 0.3 5.1 1964-65 ...... 48.2 36.9 1.33 23.4 0.1 0.1 5.6 1966-67 ...... 14.4 15.2 0.95 1.4 1968-69 ...... 27.4 30.2 0.91 3.1 1970-71 ...... 54.2 23.7 2.28 3.1 1972 ...... 48.1 7.6 6.33 0.9

SOURCES.-Sicron(1957, pp. 2, 6): Israel CentralBureau of Statistics(1973b, pp. 16-19). * Until end of the mandateperiod. t From day of establishment of Israel (AMay 14, 1948). $ Data are not published. countriesof originto illustratethe rangeof patternsthat exist concerning timeof arrivalin Israel. These distributionsshow that for some ethnics (e.g., Bulgarians,Iraqis) immigrationto Israel was compressedinto a very briefinterval, although the specificyears may vary among the groups. Otherethnics (e.g., Iranians) showless concentrationin time; theirpopu- lationshave arrivedin sizable numbersover muchof the lifetimeof the state. Still otherorigin countries (e.g., Romania) exhibitarrival patterns whichhave severalmodes. The tendencyfor period of immigrationto have influencedthe location of theindividual ethnics in differentdevelopment towns can be investigated by comparingthe concentrationof a groupin the settlementsthat were growingrapidly during its yearsof maximumimmigration, with the group's representationin all developmenttowns. To pursuethis matter we specified periodsof substantialimmigration to Israel for each ethnicgroup, and periodsof rapidpopulation growth for every town. A periodof substantial immigrationwas definedas several adjacent years duringwhich at least 50% of the group'spopulation in 1961, the census year, arrivedin the country.Alternatively, an ethnicgroup could have morethan one period of substantialimmigration if at least one-quarterof its populationin 1961 arrivedin each timeperiod. The periodswere specifiedso as to maximize

791

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology differencesamong the ethnicgroups in termsof thisclassification. That is, foranalytic purposes, we wantedto defineseveral time periods, with the individualethnics dispersed among them.Due to annual fluctuationsin the size of the total immigrationstream, our intervalsvary in duration fromtwo to fiveyears. The fourtime periods that were specified, together withthe ethnicswhich experienced substantial immigration in each, are reportedin table 4.

TABLE 4 ETHNIC GROUP CONCENTRATION IN DEVELOPMENT TOWNS,* BY PERIOD OF ARRIVAL TO ISRAEL, 1961

Proportionof Ethnic Group'sDevelopment Town PopulationThat Is ExpectedProportion of Overrepresentationof EthnicGroup with Large in SettlementsWhich EthnicGroup in EthnicGroup in Rapidly PopulationProportion GrewRapidly in RapidlyGrowing GrowingDevelopment Immigratingto Israel Time Period$ DevelopmentTowns? Towns. (1) - (2) in IndicatedPeriodt (1) (2) (3)

1948-4911

Lybia# ...... 215 .288 -.073 Turkey# ...... 350 .288 .062 Yemen ...... 717 .288 .429 Bulgaria ...... 736 .288 .448 Poland ...... 391 .288 .103 1950-51**

Egypt (Lybia) tt ...... 834 .570 .264 Iran# ...... 438 .570 -.132 Iraq .. .799 .570 .299 Romania ...... 701 .570 .131 1954-56:: Morocco# ...... 501 .413 .088 1957-61?? Egypt# ...... 260 .246 .014 Poland ...... 270 .246 .024 Romania ...... 291 .246 .045

SOURCES.-Israel Central Bureau of Statistics(1973b, table 3; 1964, table 10; 1963b, table 2), Amiran and Shachar (1969, table 4). * Computationspeitain to the 19 developmenttowns with populations exceeding 5,000 in 1961. t "Large populationproportion" is definedas morethan one-halfof the group'spopulation in Israel in 1961 arrivingin indicatedperiod (if ethnic group appears in one time interval), or more than one-quarterof group'spopulation arriving in the period (if ethnicgroup appears in two time intervals). : A "rapidlygrowing town" is one withmore than one-thirdof its 1961 populationaccounted for by expansionin the indicatedperiod (if settlementappears in one timeinterval), or morethan one-quarter of its populationaccounted for by expansionin the period(if settlementappears in morethan one time interval). ? Entryis the proportionof the totalpopulation in developmenttowns in 1961 that is in settlements whichgrew rapidly in the time period. 1IRapidly growing development towns in thisperiod Akko,Lod, Ramla, Rosh HaAyin,Yehud. # In some census data used in our calculations(Israel CentralBureau of Statistics1964, table 10) thisethnic group is paired with anotherwhich did not have a highimmigration rate in the period. ** Rapidlygrowing development towns in thisperiod* Akko, Afula, Ashkelon, Beer Sheva, Or Yehuda, Tiberias,Tirat Hakarmel,Zef at. ttEgypt and Lybia, whichare groupedin the census data, each satisfiedthe criterionfor inclusion in this time period. :4 Rapidlygrowing development towns in thisperiod: Ashkelon,Beer Sheva,Bet Shaan, Bet Shemesh, Dimona, QiryatShemona, Yavne. ?? Rapidlygrowing development towns in thisperiod: Beer Sheva,Dimona, Elat, QiryatGat.

792

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel Rapidly growingdevelopment towns were definedas places whichob- tainedat least one-thirdof their1961 populationsin the indicatedtime period.Alternatively, a townwas consideredto have multipleperiods of rapidgrowth if it obtainedat least 25%foof its 1961 populationin each of severalintervals. Using these definitions we calculatedthe proportion of an ethnicgroup's development town population in 1961 whichresided in settlementsthat were growing rapidly when its membershad a high rate of immigrationto Israel. This value is reportedin column,1 of table 4. In column2 we presentthe proportion which would reside in thesesettlements if thegroup were represented equally in all developmenttowns. Column 3 shows the differencebetween the entriesin the precedingcolumns, and measuresthe extentof overrepresentationin the townsthat were expanding rapidly. These calculationssupport the argumentthat the ethnicstend to be concentratedin settlementswhich have growthhistories that parallel theirimmigration distributions. Eleven of the 13 entriesin column3 are positive,indicating overrepresentation in rapidlyexpanding towns. Also, the twoinstances in whicha column3 entryis negativerefer to situations wherethe ethnicgroup under consideration is paired in the census data witha secondgroup, one lackinga highimmigration rate in the referenced timeperiod. In thesecases our calculationscannot provide a sensitivetest of thethesis.'0

THE INDUSTRY DISTRIBUTIONS AND OCCUPATIONAL STANDINGS OF THE ETHNIC GROUPS To thispoint our argumenthas been to the effectthat as a consequenceof a variety of arrival times in Israel by the individual ethnic groups, in combination with differentperiods of rapid population growthby the development towns, each immigrant population tends to be concentrated in particular settlements.The next considerationthat we address concerns the tendency for a development town to "specialize" in certain industries,in the sense that its firmsare grossly overrepresentedin the labor force of the settlement,and the effectwhich this situation has on the industry affiliationsof the individual ethnics. There are a number of reasons for a lack of industrial diversitywithin development towns. First, most of the settlementsare quite small; only six of the 28 on Amiran and Shachar's (1969, table 4) list had more than 15,000 inhabitantsin 1961. This fact, alone, limits the numberof industries

10 In contrast,three of the four largestentries in column 3 pertainto groups (Yemen, Bulgaria, Iraq) whose arrival patterns are characterizedby "spikes"; that is, practically their entire populations emigratedduring a very brief interval. This situation permitsthe cleanest test of the correspondence.

793

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology whicha towncan support.Second, the nationalgovernment has followeda policyof extendingincentives for certain kinds of industriesto locate in developmenttowns. Third, the preferredindustries tend to have large plants;" this also servesto reducethe varietyof firmsin a settlement. Governmentalencouragement of industryis carriedout througha plan of financialincentives administered by the Ministryof Commerceand Industry.For locatingin a developmenttown, firms are grantedtax re- ductionsand low-interestloans forsite acquisition,site development,on- the-jobtraining of workers,and workingcapital (Lichfield1971, 1:3.13). The kindsof industriesthat have been givenpreference are ones which eitherexploit the resourcesof a region-food-processingplants in agri- culturallocales, miningand chemicalmanufacturing in towns near the Dead Sea-or ones which,while neutralto location,are labor intensive and providemany jobs at a low initialcapital cost. Textilemanufacturing has been themost favored industry; the shorttraining period for spinning and weavingjobs makesthese tasks especially suitable for accommodating low-skillimmigrants. The impactof the factorswhich make forindustrial concentration can be illustratedby referenceto the economiesof a fewdevelopment towns. In QiryatShemona, 71% of industrialemployment is in textilemanufacturing;this figure represents one-fourth of the total labor forcein the city'2(Zarchi and Shiskin1972, pp. 61, 84). In Dimona,textile plants also dominatethe manufacturingsector: 96% of industrialworkers, repre- senting50%o of the labor force,are in theseenterprises. Ashqelon special- izes in food processing(46%o of industrialemployment); Bet Shemesh manufacturestransportation equipment (40% of the industriallabor force); Afulaweaves textiles (57% of the industrialwork force); and the economyof Yeruham,a new developmenttown, is based principallyon chemicaland mineralprocessing (92% of industrialemployment). While it is true that the precedingexamples depict extremeinstances of unbalanced economicstructures, they only exaggeratewhat is an evident tendency.

11 There is an evident tendencyfor plant size in developmenttowns to exceed plant size in othersettlements. In 1967, 18.2% of plants in developmenttowns employed 100 or more persons; the comparable figurefor the countrywas 4.4%. In regard to the labor force, 69% of industrialemployment in the towns was in these large plants, versus 43% for the country (Berler 1970, p. 115). To a considerableextent, the concentrationof large plants in development towns is due to the kinds of industries which have located there: food processingand packing, textilemanufacturing, potash and chemicalworks, and cementproducts. Spiegal (1966, p. 51) adds that the government has preferredto negotiate with a few big enterprisesrather than with many small ones. 12 This statisticis for 1971. Other figuresin this paragraph pertain to 1968, and are fromLichfield (1971, 3:202, 160, 122, 41, 216).

794

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel As a resultof communitydifferences in industrialcomposition, the individual ethnicgroups tend to be overrepresentedin certainactivities. Yemenitesare concentratedin textilemanufacturing (three times their representationin the Israeli population),Moroccans are in mining(four timestheir representation), Lybians manufacturecement products (four timestheir representation), and immigrantsfrom Algeria-Tunisia are em- ployeddisproportionately (by a factorof three) in wood productindus- tries.13The overrepresentationof those immigrant groups can be attributed to theparticular development towns where they reside. Veteran settlements play muchthe same sortof role,but tend to exposeEuropean ethnicsto certainindustrial sectors. Germans are overrepresented(by a factorof two) in chemicaland petroleumprocessing, an industrywhich has a majorcenter in theHaifa Bay region,where this group is concentrated.Bulgarians, who resideprincipally in the Tel Aviv metropolitanarea, are overrepresented (by a factorof two) in machineryand metal productsmanufacturing, an economicsector with a strongrepresentation in thisregion. To inquirein a moresystematic fashion into the impactof community on the industryaffiliations of the ethnicgroups, indices of dissimilarity (Taeuber and Taeuber 1965,p. 236) werecomputed from the 1961 census tape to comparethe industrydistribution of each immigrantgroup with thatof theurban population. For ethnicgroup j, thismeasure is definedby IDj - .50)2P,J- Pi.1, whereP,j the proportionof groupj's urban populationin industryi, Pi. theproportion of thetotal urban population in industryi, and thesubscript i rangesover the two-digitcensus industry categories.The indexID, variesfrom 0 to 1, and has an interpretationas the proportionof personsin ethnicgroup j who would have to change their industryaffiliations in order for the two distributionsto be in agreement. Index values forthe individualethnic groups are reportedin column1 of table 5. These figuresdocument a ratherconsistent tendency for Asian- Africanethnics to show greaterdiscrepancies from the urban population in theirindustry distributions than is thenorm for European groups. When continentof origin,as a summarymeasure, is considered,Asian-African immigrantsexhibit almost twice the disparityof Europeans14(.13 versus

13 Calculations are fromthe 1961 census tape, and referto three-digitindustry codes. 14 A problem exists in comparingthe dissimilaritiesof subpopulations with a parent population. In the presentapplication, the urban population consistsof Asian-Africans (28%7), Europeans (35%7), and Israeli born plus continentunknown (37%). Since Europeans constitutea largerpercentage of the urban population than Asian-Africans, they should have a smaller index value. However, because the deleted group is the largestnumerically, and because the two foreign-borngroups are similar in size, the index values are not simplyartifacts of the compositionof the urban population. With respectto the individual ethnic groups, this considerationis of negligibleimportance, since each comprisesa very small percentageof the urban population.

795

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

TABLE 5

DEGREE OF DISPARITY BETWEEN INDUSTRY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE ETHNIC GROUPS IN URBAN AREAS AND TOTAL URBAN POPULATION, 1961

DEVELOPMENT TOWNS ALL URBAN SETTLEMENTS Ethnic Group Percentage Percentage Proportion in Explained Explained Development ID* by Communityt ID* by Communityt Towns ETHNIC GROUP (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Turkey ...... 17 .06 .26 .38 .23 Iran ...... 28 .12 .50 .45 .24 Iraq ...... 13 .15 .26 .56 .19 Yemen-Aden ...... 28 .18 .39 .59 .20 Morocco ...... 23 .26 .31 .58 .46 Algeria-Tunisia ...... 25 .29 .32 .46 .63 Egypt ...... 21 .04 .30 .12 .21 Lybia ...... 28 .21 .40 .37 .26 Russia ...... 11 .07 .25 -.07 .05 Poland ...... 10 .07 .23 .31 .06 Germany-Austria... . .21 .10 .40 .07 .04 Czechoslovakia ...... 15 .05 .33 .02 .07 Hungary ...... 14 .00 .27 -.03 .14 Romania ...... 10 .04 .22 .29 .15 Bulgaria ...... 18 .13 .31 .18 .12 Asian-African ...... 13 .25 .26 .70 .27 European ...... 07 .12 .18 .29 .08

SOuRcE.-Computations are from the 1961 census tape, for males aged 14 and older, and pertain to communities with more than 5,000 inhabitants in 1961. * For ethnic group j, IDJ = .50 1 P,i-Pi, where Pt, -proportion of group j's urban population (development town population) in industry i, and P, = proportion of the total urban population in industry i. A t Formula is (ID, - IDj)/IDi. See text for details of this computation. Negative values should be interpreted as indicating zero importance of community.

.07). We will indicate,momentarily, that this differenceis due to the greaterrepresentation of the formerethnics in developmenttowns. To ascertainthe extentto which communityindustrial structure is responsiblefor the indexvalues, we estimatedan expectedindustry distribution{Pij} foreach ethnicgroup j, and calculatedthe degree to whichthe observeddistribution for the group is accountedfor by thisset of estimates. The expecteddistribution was computedas a weightedaverage of the industrydistribution in everycommunity, the weights being the proportions of ethnicgroup j's urban populationin the various settlements.These figurestherefore report the representationwhich a group would have in differentindustries if its memberswere employed by them,in everycommunity,at the same rates as the settlement'stotal labor force.The dissimi- laritybetween the observed and expectedindustry distributions for group j A is specifiedby IDj .50;fPij - Pijl, whichmeasures the residualdis- crepancy,the amountnot explainedby community.The percentagere-

796

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel ductionin the index which can be attributedto communityindustrial structureis (ID - ID,) /IDj. The indexproportions which are explainedby community,in the sense of thepreceding discussion, are presentedin column2 of table 5. There is an evidenttendency for residence location to be moreimportant for Asian- Africangroups than for the European ethnics.When continentof origin alone is considered,25% of thediscrepancy between the industrydistribu- tionsof Asian-Africansand the total urban populationcan be attributed to the concentrationof those immigrantsin certain communities;for Europeans, the correspondingfigure is 12%. The percentagesfor the individualethnic groups should also be comparedwith the indices of variationin settlementconcentration (table 2, top rowof lowerpanel). Despite the lack of full comparabilitybetween the ethniccategories in our two data sources,there is evidencethat the effectof communityis greaterfor groupshaving a largevariation in settlementconcentration. For instance, immigrantsfrom Yemen-Adenand Morocco-Algeria-Tunisiahave the highestindex values of settlementconcentration, and the largestpercent- ages of theirindustry distributions accounted for by community.This correspondenceis hardlysurprising; it simplyillustrates the mechanism we have been describingwhereby community may createethnic disparities in labor forcecharacteristics. What is theimpact of developmenttowns on the industryaffiliations of the ethnicgroups? To pursuethis matter, the precedingcalculations were repeatedfor the 19 developmenttowns identified on the 1961 censustape. The indexIDj nowreports the differencebetween the industry distribution of group j in the developmenttowns, and the industrydistribution of the total urbanpopulation. The results,which are presentedin column3 of table 5, reveal slightlylarger index values for Asian-Africanethnics than for Europeans; at the level of continentof origin,the respective figuresare .26 and .18. A morepronounced effect concerns the disparity betweenthe index value of an ethnicgroup in the developmenttowns, and its value in all urban settlements(cols. 1 and 3). The figuresfor developmenttowns are consistentlylarger, suggesting that these settle- mentsexpose their residents to industrialstructures that differ considerably fromthe ones existingin othercommunities.15 This observation,together with the greaterrepresentation of Asian-Africanpopulations in developmenttowns (col. 5), explainsthe mannerby whichthe townscontribute to ethnicdifferences in industryaffiliation (col.1).

15 Another way to convey this point is by noting the ID value of each settlement type. For all residentsin a settlementcategory, as compared with the total urban population, the values are .20, .13, .09, and .09, for development towns, veteran communities,suburbs, and main cities, respectively.Thus, the divergence from the urban population in industrystructure is greatestfor developmenttowns.

797

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology The degreeto whichthe indexvalues in column3 can be attributedto the industrialcomposition of developmenttowns is strikinglydifferent for Asian-Africanand European ethnics.The proportionsexplained by communityin the case of the formergreatly exceed the proportionsfor the lattergroups (col 4).16 At the level of continentof origin,the respective figuresare .70 and .29. It is also noteworthythat differencesamong the ethnicgroups in the effectof communitycorrespond to differencesamong themin degreeof concentrationin individualdevelopment towns (table 2, lowerpanel, last row). For instance,with regard to Asian-Africans,Yemen- Aden immigrantsare higheston both concentrationby settlementand importanceof communityfor explaining their industry distribution, while immigrantsfrom Egypt-Lybia are loweston both factors.The European groupsexhibit little difference in degreeof settlementconcentration, al- thoughRomanians do have somewhathigher values on the two indices. We conclude that the overrepresentationof Asian-Africanethnics in developmenttowns (which contain industries different from those common elsewherein the country[n. 15] ), and their furtherconcentration in certainof thesesettlements, has servedto exposethem, to a disproportion- ate extent,to particularindustrial opportunities. This situationis responsiblefor the largerdisparities between their industrydistributions and that of the total urban population,in comparisonwith European groups(table 5, col. 1), and forthe greaterimportance of communityin explainingtheir industry affiliations (col. 2).

Impact of ResidenceLocation on the Occupational Standingsof the EthnicGroups The industrialconfiguration of a settlementis salientto labor forceop- portunityfor a varietyof reasons.Industry determines work satisfaction (Blauner 1964), seasonalityof employment,and rateof promotion,as well as occupationalcomposition. For the narrowpurpose of understanding settlementdifferences in the latterfactor, however, it is the case that the variousindustrial structures translate into muchthe same sortof occupational distributionfor communitieswithin each settlementcategory. In particular,despite the tendencyfor individual developmenttowns to "specialize" in a given industrialactivity-textiles, food processing,and mineralextraction being the most common-the differenttowns tend to have similaroccupational distributions. The reasonsfor this are not difficultto comprehend.We have already describedthe inducementsproffered by the centralgovernment to firms

16 The negative values in this column indicate greater disparity from the industry distributionof the total urban population when the communitydistribution is considered. The most reasonable interpretationfor these figuresis as zeros.

798

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel in certainindustries, to motivatethem to locate in developmenttowns. The preferencehas tendedto be forindustries that are labor intensiveand utilize low-skillwork forces.Labor-intensive technologies create many jobs for a fixedinitial capital investment,a matterof importanceto a countrywith limitedresources in the processof accommodatinga large refugeepopulation. Low-skill occupations permit immigrants from diverse culturalbackgrounds to be assimilatedinto the labor force with a minimum of job retrainingand languageacquisition. With respect to the mainurban centers,there is evidencefrom other studies (e.g., Galle 1963, p. 263) that major metropolitanplaces typicallyhave manycommercial and ad- ministrativefunctions, which entail sizable white-collarwork forces. In table 6, columns1-4 reportthe averageoccupational distribution in each settlementtype.'7 The resultsfor development towns and the main cities confirmour a priorinotions. Development towns have few white- collar workers(22% of the labor force) while the main cities employa greatmany (49C0), in comparisonwith the urbanpopulation (41%o). It

TABLE 6

OCCUPATIONAL COMPOSITION- BY COMMUNITY CATEGORY, FOR URBAN SETTLEMENTS, 1961

OCCUPATIONALDISTRIBUTION (%)t ______- OCCUPATIONAL Upper Lower STATUS SCORES White White Upper Lower Collar Collar Manual MIanual Observed Predicted COMMUNITY CATEGORY (1) (2) (3) (4) Total (5) (6) Developmenttowns . .0909 .13 .39 .39 1.00 97.5 101.3 Veteran settlements . .14 14 .18 .40 .28 1.00 104.0 106.4 Suburbs . 1 5. ... .15 .23 .42 .20 1.00 111.7 110.0 Main cities .23 .23 .26 .33 .18 1.00 114.8 113.0 All urban settlements.18 .18 .23 .37 .22 1.00 109.7 109.7

SOURCE.-Computations are from the 1961 census tape, for males aged 14 and older, and pertain to communities with more than 5,000 inhabitants in 1961. * Occupational categories are defined as follows- upper white collar-scientific and academic workers, other professional workers, administrators and managers, lower white collar-clerical and sales workers; upper manual-skilled workers in industry, mining, building, and skilled workers in agriculture; lower manual-unskilled workers in industry, transport, building, other unskilled workers, service workers. The components refer to the 1972 occupational classification, to which the 1961 census codes were transformed (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics 1974, appendix B). t Entries are unweighted averages of settlement values, with the exception of the last row, which leports the occupational distribution of the urban population. $ Each of nine major occupational categories was indexed by its median earnings in 1972 (Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics 1973a, p. 344). "Observed" status scores are a weighted average of the earnings values, the weights being the proportions of the labor force from a settlement type in the occupations. "Predicted" status scores were calculated in the same manner except that the occupational distribution of a settlement was firstestimated from its industry distribution, the estimation being made from an industry-by-occupation matrix for the entire urban population. Status scores are in units of Israeli currency (IL X 100) and reflect annual occupational earnings in 1972.

17 Settlementoccupational distributionswere estimated from the occupational affiliations of residentsin the respectivecommunities. Our estimates,therefore, are least accurate for suburbs.

799

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology is also thecase thatdevelopment towns have fewskilled occupations, when thisoccupational category is viewedrelative to thesize of thelower manual work force.That is, while thereare equal numbersof upper and lower manualpositions, in othersettlements the ratioof skilledto unskilledoc- cupationsis muchhigher, enhancing the mobility prospects there for lower- class workers.Some implications of the restrictedoccupational opportunity in developmenttowns are outlinedin thenext section. We wishto makeclear the structuralunderpinnings of the occupational differencesamong settlement types. The differencesderive principally from the kindsof industrieslocated in the communities,and relate only indi- rectlyto the skilllevels of theinhabitants. The finaltwo columnsof table 6 provideevidence for this contention.In column5, "observed"occupationalstatus scoresare presentedfor each settlementtype. These scores werecalculated by classifyingthe occupationsinto nine major categories forwhich national earnings data are available,18and computinga weighted averageof the earningsfigures, the weightsbeing the labor forcepropor- tionsin the categories.The resultingscores index occupational standing; the value fora communityreflects only its occupationalcomposition, not the qualityof workby practitionersof an occupationor communitydif- ferencesin rate of pay for the same work.The entriesindicate that occupationalstatus varies considerablyby settlementtype, from a low of 97.5 fordevelopment towns to a highof 114.8 forthe main cities.19These figures,then, express the preceding distributional information in moresum- maryform. In column6 estimatesof the occupationalstatus scores are reported,the calculationsbeing based on the occupationaldistributions characteristicof the variousindustries,20 and the industrycomposition of each settlement.These scorestherefore report the statusdiscrepancy that shouldexist among community types, given their industrial compositions. The estimatedscores parallel the observedvalues, and reveal that 11.7 pointsfrom the 17.3-pointrange in occupationalstatus is expectedfrom industrydifferences among the settlements. The factthat the occupationaldistributions of the communitiescan be

18 Earnings data are for 1972 (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics 1973a, p. 344). Informationon income was not collected in the 1961 census. While earnings figures are available for years previous to 1972, they pertainto the one-digitcategories of an old occupational classification,which is largely an industryclassification, and show less dispersionthan do the figuresfor the presentoccupational categories. The two-digit 1961 occupationswere transformedto the 1972 codes usingthe occupationaltranslation key in Israel CentralBureau of Statistics(1974, appendix B). 19 These calculations, and others in this section, were repeated with occupational status being indexed by average education in an occupation. The results were very similarto the ones reportedin the paper. 20 An occupationaldistribution was constructedfor each industryusing data fromthe entireurban population.

800

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel understoodfrom a considerationof the kinds of industriesthey contain does not mean that the personalcharacteristics of residentsare irrelevant to the determinationof occupationalcomposition. Indeed, we have argued that the industrialstructures of developmenttowns were deliberately plannedwith the needsof theirprospective populations in mind.What a considerationof columns5 and 6 revealsis that while the skill levels of the inhabitantsmay have been influentialas initial causes in attracting certainkinds of enterprises,once an industrialbase has been established the occupationalstructure of a settlementis an immediateresultant of its mix of industries.Also, since fewindustries have technologieswhich can accommodatemuch varietyin occupationalcomposition, a settlement cannotrespond easily to changesin the skill and educationlevels of its residents. The impact of communityon the magnitudeof ethnicdifferences in occupationalstatus is reportedin table 7 for the continent-of-origin groups.2'Columns 1 and 4 presentoccupational status scores for each ethnicgroup, by settlementcategory. These "observed"values were cal- culatedin the same fashionas the entriesin column5 of table 6, the sole differencebeing that the weightsused in computingthe occupational averagesnow pertain to proportionsof the relevantethnic group. The fig- uresreveal sizable disparities for each group, over the community categories, withdevelopment towns showing the lowest status scores, and suburbsand

TABLE 7

OCCUPATIONAL STATUS* OF THE CONTINENT-OF-ORIGIN GROUPS, BY COMMUNITY CATEGORY, 1961

ASIAN-AFRICAN EUROPEAN

Proportion Population of Group's of Group's Observed Expected Urban Observed Expected Urban Status Status Population Status Status Population COMMUNITY CATEGORY (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Development towns . .... 0.0 96.6 .27 106.4 98.1 .08 Veteran settlements.. 91.1 103.4 .21 110.5 104.2 .19 Suburbs . 10...... 110.6 .18 115.3 112.1 .22 Main cities . 9...... 114.9 .34 119.7 114.7 .51 All urban settlements...... 96.2 106.6 1.00 115.9 110.8 1.00

SOURCE.-Computations are from the 1961 census tape, for males aged 14 and older, and pertain to communities with more than 5,000 inhabitants in 1961. * Status scoreswere computedin the mannerdescribed in n. I of table 6, except that the weights now refer,to an ethnicgroup's proportions in the occupationalcategories. Scores are in unitsof Israeli currency(IL X 100), and reflectannual occupationalearnings in 1972.

21 The findingsfor the individualethnic groups show only small differencesfrom their continentmeans, and thereforeare not presentedseparately.

801

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology main cities the highest.Within each settlementtype therealso are sub- stantialstatus differences between the immigrantgroups: Europeanscon- sistentlyhave higheroccupational standing than Asian-Africans. When all urbansettlements are considered,a 19.7-pointdifferential is obtainedbe- tweenthe origingroups. What we wish to ascertainis the extentto which this gap is a consequenceof the settlementpatterns of the two ethnic groups. Expectedstatus scores were computed for each origingroup by assuming that,in everycommunity, its membershad thesame occupationaldistribution as the settlement'stotal population.This computationtherefore in- dexes the degreeto whichan immigrantpopulation is advantagedoccu- pationallyby its communitylocations. The expectedscores are reported in columns2 and 5, and revealcomparable occupational exposure patterns for the two ethnic groups withineach settlementcategory. However, because Asian-Africansare overrepresentedin developmenttowns, while Europeansare concentratedin themain cities and suburbs(cols. 3 and 6), at the level of the totalurban population a significantgap emergesin ex- pectedoccupational status; the score forAsian-Africans is 106.6, and for Europeansit is 110.8.This 4.2-pointgap, whichis attributableto different settlementlocations by the two ethnics,accounts for 21 % of the observed discrepancyin occupationalstatus betweenthe groups. In actuality,this 4.2-point gap is an upperbound to the impactof community.Our computationshave ignored residentcharacteristics, and therebypresume that any settlementdifferences in years of schoolingor otherjob-related skills are, properly,the effectsof community;for instance,lower educational attainment in developmenttowns might be due to poor school facilitiesin these settlements.However, there is evidence (next section) thatcapable individualstend to migratefrom development towns.This means that individualattributes are, in part, a determinant of settlementlocation, rather than the reverse.If we adopt this formula- tion, the effectof communityshould be examined net of individual characteristics.While we cannothold thesefactors constant using the pre- cedingmethodology, by means of a regressionprocedure an individual's occupationalstatus was examinedagainst terms for (a) ethnicorigin, (b) education,age, and lengthof residencein Israel, and (c) 46 dummyterms forthe settlements. The resultwas thatthe initial 19.7-point gap22 between Asian-Africanand Europeanimmigrants was reducedto 6.9 pointsby ad- ditionof the individualcharacteristics, and to 4.7 pointsby the introduction of the settlementterms. This last 2.2-pointreduction, representing

22 In the regressionformulation, the ethnic gap in occupational status appears as the differencebetween the b coefficientsfor the two continent-of-origingroups (entered as dummy variables). The Israeli-bornpopulation is the deleted category.

802

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel 11% of the initial status difference,is a lower bound to the effectof community.23 Settlementlocation by no means accountsfor a major portionof the ethnicgap in occupationalstanding. Sizable disparitiesexist betweenthe groupsin educationand occupationallyrelevant skills (Ben Porath 1973), and theyare responsiblefor the larger part of theoccupational differential. Nonetheless,the effectof settlementis not negligible.At the level of the individualethnics, its importanceis even greaterin certaininstances. For example, in terms of the more conservativecalculation, a 3.8-point differencein occupationalstatus is expectedbetween immigrants from Russia and Algeria-Tunisia,in favorof the former,on the basis of the occupationalopportunities available in the communitieswhere each group resides.That thissettlement effect is due largelyto thedifferent representa- tionsof thesetwo ethnicsin developmenttowns may be seen fromcolumn 5 of table 5.

CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TOWNS

We have characterizeddevelopment towns as locales in which few moderate-statuspositions are available, this limitationderiving from a concentrationof low-skillindustries in the settlements.Relating the occupationalcomposition of the townsto theirdemographic features, we have suggestedthat the restrictedoccupational opportunity in thesecomunities is responsible,in part,for the disparitieswhich exist in Israel in occupationalstanding between immigrants from European and those fromnon- European countries;that is, the latterethnics, being overrepresentedin the towns,are exposed disproportionatelyto disadvantageousindustrial contexts.Yet theimpact of developmenttowns on national-levelindices of the ethnicgap is mutedby the factthat even amongAsian-Africans, only 27% of thepopulation resides in thisclass of settlements.When we turnto a considerationof the social characterof the townsthemselves, however, the full impactof the initialdecisions concerning the structureof their economiesbecomes evident. Thereis meritto thecontention that the government's policy to establish new townsin outlyingareas, directlarge numbersof immigrantsto the settlements,and introducein them principallylabor-intensive, low-skill industries,constituted an efficientstrategy by whicha small countrywith

23 The persistenceof a communityeffect, which we note here, means that, despite a high migration rate from development towns to communitieswith better work opportunities,many individuals,when confrontedwith a choice between career and ties to familyand neighbors,do not choose to maximize occupational prospects.

803

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology modestresources could cope with severalpressing and relatedproblems. First,immigrant absorption was a matterof urgency,not somethingthat could be deferredor solved gradually,and the introductionof low-skill technologiesfacilitated their rapid incorporationinto the labor force.A secondobjective furthered by the new townswas promotionof population redistributionand the openingof the hinterlandto development.This was easier to achievethrough encouraging new immigrants,who had few ties withcommunities in Israel,to settlein the towns,than through stimulating the migrationof veteranIsraelis fromthe country'smetropolitan centers. Nevertheless,substantial disutilities can be associatedwith the new-town policyonce a longer-rangetime perspective is adopted.Pertaining to this matter,we wish to discuss severalimmediate consequences of the labor forcecomposition of developmenttowns, as well as a numberof derivative, second-orderproblems. The directconsequences of limitedopportunity are thatimmigrants who cometo the townswith training which qualifies them for skilled manual or lowerwhite-collar positions have difficultyin locatingsuitable work, and residentswho begin their careers in low-rankedjobs have limitedprospects forupward mobility. An indicationof the seriousnessof the blockagein occupationalmobility, even forpoorly educated persons, can be seen by notingthat in the two medium-statuscategories underrepresented in the towns (skilled manual and lowerwhite collar),24 58% of the country's laborforce in theformer category, and 29% of thelabor force in the latter, have eightor feweryears of education(Israel CentralBureau of Statistics 1973a, pp. 336-37). This means thatit is not uncommonfor capable in- dividualswith little education to enterthese occupations.To summarize, whilethe industriesestablished in developmenttowns may be appropriate to the skill level of the average immigrant,they severelyconstrain the occupationalprospects of the better-educatedor moremotivated settlers. Partlyas a consequenceof limitedoccupational opportunity, there has been considerablemigration from development towns. A reporton 21 towns(Israel ManpowerPlanning Authority 1964, p. 6) notes that 40% of theirpopulation in 1961 movedout of this settlementcategory in the succeedingtwo years; thisfigure was fourtimes the nationalrate of inter- urbanmovement. There is also evidencethat the migrantscome fromthe moretalented segment of the community:25they are bettereducated than

24 "Skilled manual" refers to the census occupational category-skilled workers in industry,mining, building, and transport;and to part of the census category-agricultural workers."Lower white collar" refersto two occupational categories-clericaland related workers,and sales workers (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics 1974). 25 Data are from tabulations prepared by the authors from the 1961 census tape. Occupational status is indexed by 1972 earnings figures for the one-digit census occupation categories.Facility with Hebrew is based on a census tape code which referssimultaneously to readingand writingcompetence.

804

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel nonmigrants(7.6 yearsof schoolingvs. 6.2), have highercurrent occupationalstatus (103 vs. 96), are more facilewith Hebrew (74% can read and writevs. 65%), and have been in Israel fora longerperiod (11.4 years vs. 11.0).26 There is littlemigration to developmenttowns from veteran settlements,which mightoffset this loss of capable residents.27Rather, thesetowns have functionedas portsof entryfor new immigrantsto the country,providing them with temporary places of abode untilthey acquire themeans to establishthemselves in othercommunities. Those who remain tend to have modestoccupational aspirations or requirethe housingsub- sidies and otherkinds of assistancethat are more readily available to residentsof developmenttowns. To put matterssuccinctly, the townsserve as "sinks" forless resourcefulimmigrants. An additionalprocess appears to operatein developmenttowns within commutingdistance of veteran settlements.Residents who are better qualifiedoccupationally frequently obtain employmentoutside the towns and travelto work,much as if theylived in suburbs.From the 1961 census tape we calculatedthat, for the industrial labor force28residing in developmenttowns, mean educationof males employedoutside their settlements is 7.4 years,compared with 6.9 years for those residingand workingin the towns.It is unclearfrom our data whetherthe existenceof suitable employmentin nearbycommunities permits development towns to retain these individuals,or whetherit facilitatestheir eventualdeparture by enablingthe withdrawalto be accomplishedin stages.To some extentthe latterprocess probably operates, since many of the settlementsare not veryattractive, and theirinhabitants often have onlya weak identification withcommunity (Lichfield 1971, 1:6.3, 6.10). In thisregard we pointout that, alongsidethe departureof skilled manual and lower white-collar workers,development towns tend to have nonresidentprofessional and administrativework forces (Smith 1972,p. 34). Teachers,social workers, and industrialmanagers choose to commuteto work ratherthan reside in the towns.Our calculationsfrom the 1961 censustape providesupport-

26 We point out that the higher scores of migrantsare not just a consequence of geographic mobility being more common among better-situatedpersons. Individuals who moved to another developmenttown tend to have lower scores than migrants out of this settlementcategory. Averages for the formerclass of movers are: 7.1 years of schooling, 100.0 in currentoccupational status, 73% competentin Hebrew, and 10.9 years in Israel. 27Amiran and Shachar (1969, p. 21) cite a net out-migrationfigure of 10,000,during the interval 1956-61, from the census category "new urban settlements"(which in- cludes approximatelyone-half the population in developmenttowns). Lichfield (1971, 1:6.2) reportsa net out-migrationof 43,800, between the years 1961 and 1967, from his list of developmenttowns. 28 Several development towns, in outlying areas, also supply agricultural workers. Since we are discussingthe impact of the labor market in neighboringsettlements, agriculturalemployment is deleted from this comparison.

805

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology ing evidencefor this residencestyle among white-collar workers: educational attainmentby nonresidentsemployed in developmenttowns is 10.0 yearsof schooling,versus 6.6 yearsfor inhabitants of the towns. These processesare responsiblefor the indirecteffects of industrial structurethat we wish to document.The inabilityof the settlementsto retaintheir more resourcefuland better-acculturatedinhabitants, or at- tract comparablepersons from other Israeli communitiesin substantial numbers,has meantthat the settlerswho remaintend to have highrates of dependencyand relatedsocial problems.In 1963, 11.6% of familiesin developmenttowns received continuous economic help, in comparisonwith 4.4% in the total population.For all formsof assistance,the respective figureswere 34.5%o and 17.4%o (Israel Manpower PlanningAuthority 1964, p. 26). With regardto participationin educationby youth,in the 14-17-yearage group,41%o in developmenttowns study full-time in some educationalinstitution, compared with 68% in the entirecountry (Israel ManpowerPlanning Authority 1964, p. 11). Delinquencystatistics are consistentwith this picture. Using data fromthe Israel Ministryof Welfare's(1972) handbookof communitycharacteristics, we calculated an incidencerate of 26.6 per 1,000 in the age group 9-16 for the 19 developmenttowns used in the previouscomputations. This figurecom- pares with 14.3 for the country,and 16.4 for the threemain cities. Even if the ratesof incurringsocial problemsin developmenttowns by the ethnicand class groupingsresiding there were not greaterthan the ratesthese same populations exhibit in othercommunities, the mere fact of concentrationof less resourcefulfamilies creates undesirable consequences. The low representationof moderate-statusindividuals in the townsand theirhigh populationturnover mean that local leadershiptends to be weak29(Lichfield 1971, 1:63), that the schools are not centersof ex- cellence,and that the clientelecapable of supportingcultural activities is small.Despite grants-in-aid from the central government, these settlements are hard pressedto collectadequate tax moniesto providefor the mani- foldneeds of theirlower-class populations (Lichfield 1971, 1:5.16), not to mentionthe amenitieswhich can make a communityan attractiveplace of residence.Finally, because developmenttowns are contextsin whichde- pendencyis common,there is a seriousrisk that it willbecome an approved life-style.30

29 At the same time, according to Aronoff(1973, pp. 42-44), the concentrationof Asian-Africanpopulations in development towns has facilitated the emergence of political leadership in these ethnic groups. Since their populations dominate the electorates,local ethnic leaders have a more secure political base in the towns than in veteran settlements. 30 In a recentstudy of factorswhich influencerequests for a certainwelfare allowance, Bar Yosef, Schild, and Varshar (1974) report that, after controls for personal need,

806

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel To clarifythe precedingcomments, and place themin perspectivein relationto long-rangeprospects for the towns,we muststress two points. First,we have discusseddevelopment towns as if theyformed a homogene- ous settlementcategory with regard to occupationalcomposition and the presenceof derivativeproblems. This is a reasonablefirst approximation to the reality,and an efficientanalytic strategyconsidering that our interestis to elucidatethe relationbetween community and ethnicstratification,and documentthe particularrole played by industrialstructure. However,it means ignoringthe many differentiatingmechanisms which have resultedin a fewdevelopment towns constituting cases of successful progress,in that theyattract settlers from diverse population groups via internalmigration, retain their more talentedresidents, and have either acquired a diversifiedindustrial base or were foundedoriginally around industrieswhich utilize a greaterarray of occupationalskills than is the normin the majorityof the towns. Beersheva,Ashdod, and Arad are examplesof successfuldevelopment towns.Beersheva is now a regionalcenter for southernIsrael; it has a university,provides medical and commercialservices for the surrounding region,and is able to supporta varied white-collarlabor force.Ashdod is a major seaport:Workers in shippingare well paid; also, the townhas attractedancillary manufacturing, transportation, and commercialfirms that findit advantageousto be located in a maritimecenter. Arad is an isolatedcommunity near the Dead Sea whichhas beenbuilt around mineral extraction,chemical processing, and metal fabricationindustries. These activitiesrequire engineers, technicians, and skilledcraftsmen. Because of the settlement'sisolation, these personnel,together with teachers,social workers,and otherswho provideprofessional services in the town,must live there,and consequentlyhave a vestedinterest in its progress.Arad, in addition,is advantagedby social composition;a majorityof its residents are Israeli born,and lack the manyadjustment problems which confront newimmigrants. Differentiating processes of considerableimport therefore operate, and some settlementsare followingsatisfactory development trajectories.However, a detailedconsideration of thesematters is outside the scope of thisreport. A secondqualification concerns the fact that we are examiningthe towns at a veryearly point in theirhistories. The bulk of our data are fromthe 1961 Census of Population; thus no developmenttown is older than 13 years,at least in its modernphase. Most are verysmall, having less than 10,000 inhabitants,and their unbalanced industrialcharacter stems partlyfrom this size factor.However, because governmentalpolicy is to encouragefurther growth, and because the immigrantsnow arrivingin knowledge about the allowance, and various individual characteristics,residence in a developmenttown has a strong,positive effecton application.

807

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology Israel come predominatelyfrom European countriesand are bettereducated than the earlierrefugees, conditions exist for altering the industrial compositionof the settlements.The amountof high-technologyindustry thatwould have to be introducedto providereasonably balanced occupational structuresis not at presentvery great, and could be organized around the skills of the new immigrantsin combinationwith a modest numberof Israeliswho mightbe attractedfrom veteran settlements.

RELEVANCE OF THIS ANALYSIS FOR ETHNIC STRATIFICATION IN THE UNITED STATES

The processeswe have describedare veryvisible in Israel because of the huge immigrationinflow this countryhas experiencedin a brief time interval-farexceeding the rate of growthof theAmerican population from immigrationin any similarperiod-and becausethe government's espoused intentionhas been to settlethe immigrants in new towns.Nonetheless, the importanceof communityfor explaining ethnic stratification in the United States is also considerable,although the mechanismsthat have brought immigrantgroups to certainsections of the country,and to particular communities,are not identical with the ones which have operated in Israel. The sortsof mechanismsthat have generatedethnic concentration by regionand communityin Americaconcern time of arrival,route of travel, and degreeof affinityof a group for its own kind. The firstfactor is associatedwith the processeswe have describedin connectionwith ethnic concentrationin Israel. Immigrantsfrom various lands came to America in differentdecades; and time of arrivalcorrelates with locationof the westernfrontier and, consequently,with periodof settlementof a geo- graphicregion. Route of travelis a considerationin explainingthe concentrationof certaingroups-French-Canadians, Mexicans, and Chinese- whocame via routesthat were not followedby themajority of immigrants. These ethnicstend to be overrepresentedin the states that bordertheir portsof entry. The preferenceof individualsfrom the same countryof originto live in proximityto theirown kind is also responsiblefor generating ethnic concentration,although this factordoes not explain wherein Americana groupwill chooseto reside.Breton (1964) suggestedthat immigrants who are differentfrom the receivingpopulation on a numberof dimensions- language,religion, cultural traditions-are likely to settle togetherin a communityin orderto constitutea clienteleof sufficientsize to support ethnicchurches, schools, restaurants, newspapers, and Landsmanshaften. Once the initialmigrants have establishedthemselves in particularcities,

808

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel chosenfor whatever reason, subsequent immigrants from the countryof origintend to travelto the same settlements. As a consequenceof these processes,the correspondenceof ethnicity withgeographic region and communityis quite strong.Scandinavians and Germansare concentratedin theMidwest; French-Canadians are locatedin northernNew England; Italians are in southernNew Englandand in the Mid-Atlanticstates; and Jews,a heavilyurban group,reside principally in New York City and Chicago. To cite instancesof extremeethnic concentrationin states,1920 censusdata on the foreignborn reveal that Norwegianswere representedin NorthDakota at 15 timestheir national rate; French-Canadianswere concentrated in New Hampshireat 27 times theirrate in the country;and Mexicanswere overrepresentedin Arizona by a factorof 41 (Hutchinson1956, pp. 34-48). It is also the case that first-generationAmerican born continue to residein thegeographic regions of theirparents; 1950 censusdata on nativesof foreignor mixedparen- tage show representationrates of 19, 27, and 11 for the precedingthree groups,in theirrespective states (Hutchinson1956, pp. 39-43). The persistenceof ethnicconcentration means that regionaland communitydifferences in industrylocation will have a stableimpact on ethnic opportunity.There are strikingdifferences among the immigrantgroups in industryaffiliation. This is principallya consequenceof the industrial compositionin thesettlements where a groupis concentrated,although the ethnicpopulations are themselvesresponsible for introducingseveral in- dustriesinto America-ready-madeapparel manufacturing,for instance, is associatedwith Jewish immigrants (Hapgood 1966,p. 10). To illustrate the tendencytoward ethnic concentration by industry,according to 1950 censusdata on the foreignborn, French-Canadians are employedin textile mills (a New Englandindustry) at seventimes their representation in the population.Mexicans work in farmingat 11 timestheir expected rate, and in foodprocessing at threetimes the expectedrate (both industrieshave extensiveoperations in the Southwestand farwest). Czechoslovakianand Yugoslavianimmigrants are employedin primarymetal processing at four timestheir representations in the country;these groups have largepopu- lationsin Pennsylvania,Ohio, and Illinois,which are centersof ferrous metalworks(Hutchinson 1956, pp. 224-31) .31 Industryaffiliation is an importantconsideration in the analysis of occupationalstanding and mobilityfor several reasons.Industries differ in technologyand, as a consequence,in mixof occupations.Textile manu- facturingand food processing,for instance,contain few skilled manual positions,while the majorityof the blue-collarwork force in printingand

31 Industryconcentration figures are based on data for operatives,except in the case of Mexicans in farming,for whom farmlaborer figures were used.

809

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology in aircraftmanufacturing is classifiedas skilled (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1963, pp. 506-12). The occupationaldistribution in an industry is one determinantof the mobilityprospects facing an individual,and constrainshis advancementto a greateror lesser extent,depending on the shape of the distribution,as long as he remainsemployed in that sectorof the economy.32Where communities are centersof a particular industrialactivity, the occupationalcomposition of the dominantindustry has an even morepervasive effect on labor marketopportunity; indeed, thisis the situationthat exists in manydevelopment towns in Israel. Industriesdiffer in otherrespects which can influencean individual's occupationalmobility prospects. In some, the firmscharacteristically fill theirupper-manual positions by promotionfrom below; in otherindustries a craftmodel is the norm,which permitslittle possibilityfor upward movement.Demographic features of an industryare also relevantto under- standingmobility opportunity: some industriesare expanding,and create newupper-manual and white-collarpositions which might be filledthrough promotion;others are stable or decliningin employment,and present limitedpromotion prospects. Finally, industries differ in the age compositionof theiremployees, a considerationrelevant to mobility,as it specifies the amountof promotionand replacementhiring that will take place in the short-termfuture. It is unfortunatethat industryand communitycharacteristics have been neglectedin the main thrustof researchon statusattainment, which has focusedexclusively on individual-levelvariables. This omissionis especiallyserious in the studyof ethnicstratification, since, as we have documented,ethnic groups tend to be concentratedby regionand settlement,and are thereforeexposed to differentindustrial structures. Analyses of occupationalstanding have commonlyattributed the ethnic effects whichremain after controls for individualcharacteristics (father's SES, respondent'seducation and statusof firstjob, etc.) to culturalbackground or motivationaldifferences among the groups (Duncan and Featherman 1972). Whilewe have no reasonto doubt the salienceof such factorsfor understandingethnic stratification, we do suggestthat they are confounded in the residualethnic termswith substantialindustry and community effects.

REFERENCES

Amiran,D. K. H., and A. Shachar. 1969. Development Towns in Israel. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

32 Change of industry,indeed change of firm,is hardly a decision that can be made easily, except by the young, in response to the availability of better occupational prospects with a differentemployer. Workers accumulate pension rights,seniority toward job security,and othervested interestswhich are not transferable.

810

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DevelopmentTowns in Israel

Aronoff,Myron J. 1973. "Development Towns in Israel." In Israel: Social Structure and Change, edited by Michael Curtis and Mordecai Chertoff.New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Barkai, Haim. 1974. "A Model of Kibbutz Production and Factor Allocation." Dis- cussion Paper no. 742. Jerusalem:Falk Institute. Bar Yosef, Rivka, Gile Schild, and Yudith Varshar. 1974. "Research on the Economic Situation of Large Families at the Time of the War." In Hebrew, mimeographed. Jerusalem: Work and Welfare Research Institute,Hebrew University. Ben Porath, Yoram. 1973. "On East-West Differencesin Occupational Structurein Israel." In Israel: Social Structure and Change, edited by Michael Curtis and Mordecai Chertoff.New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Berler,Alexander. 1970. New Towns in Israel. Jerusalem: Israel UniversitiesPress. Bettelheim,Bruno. 1969. Childrenof the Dream. New York: Macmillan. Blauner, Robert. 1964. Alienationand Freedom. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Breton, Raymond. 1964. "InstitutionalCompleteness of Ethnic Communitiesand the Personal Relations of Immigrants."American Journal of Sociology 70 (September): 193-205. Brutzkus,Eliezer. 1964. Physical Planning in Israel. Jerusalem: E. Brutzkus. Cohen, Erik. 1968. "A Comparative Study of the Political Institutionsof Collective Settlementsin Israel." Mimeographed.Jerusalem: Department of Sociology, Hebrew University. 1970. The City in the Zionist Ideology. Jerusalem: Institute of Urban and Regional Studies, Hebrew University. Duncan, Otis D., and David L. Featherman. 1972. "Psychologicaland Cultural Factors in the Process of Occupational Achievement."Social Science Research 1 (June): 121-45. Galle, Omer R. 1963. "Occupational Composition and the Metropolitan Hierarchy: The Inter- and Intra-MetropolitanDivision of Labor." American Journal of So- ciolcgy 69 (November): 260-69. Hapgood, Hutchins. 1966. The Spirit of the Ghetto. New York: Schocken. Hutchinson,E. P. 1956. Immigrantsand Their Children,1850-1950. New York: Wiley. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics.1963a. Population and Housing Census 1961: The Settlementsof Israel, Part 1. Publication no. 10. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. . 1963b. Population and Housing Census 1961 * The Settlementsof Israel, Part 3. Publication no. 12. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. . 1964. Population and Housing Census 1961: The Settlementsof Israel, Part 4. Publication no. 18. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. . 1965. Population and Housing Census 1961: Proceduresand Definitions.Publi- cation no. 25. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. - . 1966. Population and Housing Census 1961: The Settlementsof Israel, Part 6. Publication no. 28. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. 1973a. Statistical Abstract of Israel. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. 1973b. Immigrationto Israel 1948-1972. Special Series no. 416. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. 1974. The Standard Classificationof Occupations 1972. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. Israel Manpower PlanningAuthority. 1964. Manpower in Development Towns. Jerusa- lem: Ministryof Labor. Israel Ministryof Welfare. 1972. Settlementsin Israel: Profiles.Jerusalem: Ministry of Welfare. Lichfield,Nathaniel. 1971. Israel's New Towns: A Developmental Strategy. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Ministryof Housing. Matras, Judah. 1973. "Israel's New Frontier: The Urban Periphery."In Israel: Social Structure and Change, edited by Michael Curtis and Mordecai Chertoff.New Brunswick: TransactionBooks.

811

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AmericanJournal of Sociology

Sicron, Moshe. 1957. Immigrationto Israel (suppl.). Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. Smith, Herbert. 1972. Survey of Development Towns and Cities. No. 1. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: Smith Center for Research. Spiegal, Erika. 1966. New Towns in Israel. Stuttgart:Kramer. Spiro, Melford E. 1970. Kibbutz: Venturein Utopia. New York: Schocken. Stigler,George. 1966. The Theory of Price. New York: Macmillan. Taeuber, Karl E., and Alma F. Taeuber. 1965. Negroes in Cities: Residential Segrega- tion and Neighborhood Change. Chicago: Aldine. Talmon, Yonina. 1972. Family and Communityin the Kibbutz. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1963. Census of Population 1960: Occupational Character- istics. Report no. PC(2)-7A. Washington,D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office. Weintraub,Dov, and M. Shapira. 1971. "The Family in the Process of Change: Crisis and Continuity."In Immigrationand Social Change, edited by Dov Weintraub. Jerusalem: Israel UniversitiesPress. Zarchi, Shaul, and Aryia Shiskin. 1972. Qiryat Shimona: Establishmentof a Develop- ment Town. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: Ministryof Housing.

812

This content downloaded from 160.39.33.214 on Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:59:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions