EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, INCOME LEVELS AND AFRICANS IN THE UNITED STATES: THE PARADOX OF NIGERIAN IMMIGRANTS

In the United States, high levels of educational attainment tend to result in higher annual incomes. Nigerian immigrants in the United States in particular, but African immigrants in general are among the most educated groups in the country. There is a paradox, however, whereby the high level of educational attainment of Nigerian immigrants in the United States does not result in higher incomes. This paper examines the factors responsible for Nigerian immigrants in the United States being among the most educated groups in 1990, but earned substantially less in both median household and family incomes than the national average.

Introduction

What is a Paradox? According to Collin (1999), a Paradox is “a thing which appears to contradict itself but may really be true” (p.331). Another definition of a Paradox is “one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases”1 Africans and Nigerians in particular are experiencing interesting paradoxes both at home in the Old World and abroad in the New World, especially in the United States. Africa is one of the richest continents in the world in terms of human and natural resources, yet the people of the continent are among the poorest in the world. Nigeria is one of the richest countries in the world in human and natural resources, yet the people of that nation are among the poorest in the world in material wealth. In the New World, especially in the United States, African immigrants, especially Nigerians are the most educated, yet not only did they have one of the lowest incomes in 1990, but they were also among the poorest people in the country during that same year. Let us examine these paradoxes both in the Old World and the New World (United States).

The Paradox of Nigeria in the Old World

Utilizing the concept of a paradox, Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation (131.9 million, 14.6 percent out of 910.8 million people in Africa in July 2006) and one of its most powerful nations, is portrayed in international comparative economic and social statistics as a 7’0” giant who wears only a size 4 pair of shoes, or that can only lift no more that 50 pounds of weights. By this analogy one wonders why such a talented nation in human resource and endowed with natural resources, continues to perform so poorly when compared to other African and developing nations? When one compares Nigeria and other nations in Africa and the world using social and economic indicators such as the annual United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the World Bank World Development reports and the CIA World Factbook, year after year, Nigeria is shown underperforming. For example, as of 2005, while the average per capita GDP in Africa was $3,918, it was $1,400 for Nigeria. The average infant mortality rate in Africa in 2006 was 74 deaths per 1,000, but 97 deaths per 1,000 in Nigeria. The average death rate in Africa in 2006 was 14.24 deaths per 1,000, but 17 deaths per 1,000 in Nigeria. The average life expectancy in Africa in 2006 was 53 years, but 47 years in Nigeria. This is despite the fact that Nigeria currently has the second largest crude oil reserves in Africa as of 2005 (36 billion barrels) behind Libya (40 billion barrels) (Data compiled and computed by author based on the 2006 CIA World Factbook).

Understanding Nigeria is almost as understanding sub-Saharan Africa. That is because for the most part, Nigeria is sub-Saharan Africa as sub-Saharan Africa is Nigeria. If one wants to study a sub-Saharan African nation to get an idea as to how the others are doing, Nigeria can be a representative nation. If one was to also study sub-Saharan Africa in general, the findings may be similar to the experience of Nigeria. We shall find a similar experience with Nigerians and other black Africans in the United States, whereby what is happening to Nigerian immigrants is also what is happening to other black African immigrants, in terms of educational attainment and income levels.

To explain Nigeria and her diaspora is to use an analogy of a person and a mirror. For Nigeria, based on development statistics by the UNDP and others, it is like looking into a mirror and seeing a person who does not look well and is in a lot of distress. The skin is peeling and looks like someone who is just coming out of a grave. However, the actual person looking into the mirror is young and fully healthy and full of energy and abundant potential with an extremely bright future. This is one way to explain Nigeria and her diaspora. On most indices pertaining to health, economy and other important indicators, Nigeria does not seem to be performing well. But when one actually meets Nigerians, they look and perform far superior than what the experts write about them in world and regional reports. Indeed, this author has pointed out that if a Minister of Development for any nation in the world wants to recruit racial/ethnic groups from abroad for economic development, they should consider bringing in three groups first: (1) the American, who is of any race/ethnicity (2) the Chinese, and (3) the Nigerian. That is because, this author has observed that where ever one finds each of these three groups outside of their countries, there is economic activity within the communities in those societies that they reside.

What are some explanations for this paradox? One explanation is that in Nigeria, like in many African and Arab nations, there is a substantial proportion of people that do not trust the banking and business methods utilized by the West, where most development data and reports about developing countries are compiled. This is due to the legacy of the exploitation of these developing nations in the past centuries. As a result, most Nigerians tend to conduct business through an informal economy, which is not included in the reports by those institutions mentioned above. In addition, half of Nigeria’s total population is Muslim, and also most Muslims do not always conduct business as people in Western nations do. For example, Schneider and Enste (2000) point out that from 1990 to 1993, the average of the size of the shadow economy as percent of GDP in Nigeria and Egypt was 68-76 percent, and 39-45 percent in Morocco and Tunisia (p.80). Nigerians are among the greatest entrepreneurs in the world.

A second point that must be considered when one looks at development indicators showing Nigeria’s underperformance, is that from the 1990s to present, the people and government of Nigeria showed leadership in West Africa by sending troops and spending what might have amounted to billions of dollars to stop the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia. For example, according to Nuamah (2003): “Nigerian-led interventions into Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s lasted eleven years, resulted in over 1,000 Nigerian fatalities, and cost the Nigerian treasury billions of dollars . . . ” (p.13). In addition to that high number of fatalities, those billions of dollars are funds that the people of Nigeria could have used to improve their schools, hospitals, police force, et cetera.

Corruption and mismanagement by government officials in Nigeria have also been cited as contributing to the underperformance of Nigeria (Guseh and Oritsejafor, 2007; Watts, 2006; Werlin, Herbert H., 2005). It is quoted in Guseh and Oritsejafor (2007) that:

Another explanation for the ‘underperformance’ of Nigeria, as Kaba (2007) points out is, that nation, like many others in West Africa have experienced two forms of the ‘Brain Drain’ (Slavery and post World War II elite Exodus to the West or developed countries). As a result, by the beginning of the 21st century, “. . . among the most influential individuals in the world such as scientists of all kinds, professional entertainers, athletes, politicians, businessmen and women, etc. are people of [Nigerian and] West African descent who are not in West Africa” (p.77). Akintokunbo Adejumo writes of Nigerians that: “We have a Nobel Laureate, we have Deputy Presidents of the World Bank; we have thousands of notable medical doctors, journalists, academicians, accountants, engineers, scientists, IT specialists, political scientists, economists, you name it”2 most of them residing outside Nigeria. According to McAuliffe and MacLachlan (2005), it has been “. . . estimated that the United States has saved USD3.86 billion as a consequence of importing 21,000 doctors from Nigeria alone” (p.233).

The New World (United States)

This now brings us to the second paradox pertaining to people of Nigerian descent in the United States, and the primary motivation for the writing of this paper. The African immigrant population in the United States is steadily increasing in the first decade of the 21st century. Just as Nigeria is Africa’s most populous nation, so also Nigerian immigrants in the United States comprise the highest proportion. Jill Watson of the Brookings Institution (USA) is quoted as saying that by 2005 there were an estimated 1.25 million African immigrants in the United States, the highest such estimate provided in history.3 According to the United States Census Bureau, as of March 2000, there were an estimated 881,300 African immigrants in the United States, with Nigerians comprising 134,940 (15.3 percent) (“United States Census Bureau,” 2000).

In the United States, educational attainment tends to be correlated with earnings. For example, according to the United States Census, during an adult’s work life, on average, those who graduate from high school are expected to make $1.2 million, $2.1 million for those with bachelor’s degrees, $2.5 million for those with master’s degrees, $3.4 million for those with doctorates, and $4.4 million for those with professional degrees, such as law and medicine (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002, July 18). Also, according to Mike Bergman, in the United States, on average, an adult who is 18 years or older with either a masters, doctorate or professional degree earns $79,946 in 2005, one with a bachelor’s degree on average earns $54,689, one with a high school diploma earns on average $29,448, and $19,915 for one with less than a high school diploma (March 15, 2007).

Carefully examining educational attainment data in the United States for 1990, however, shows that Nigerians were at the top among the most educated ancestry groups, but unlike other ethnic groups, they tend to have substantially lower household and family incomes and also have higher rates of poverty. Why is that the case?

Utilizing United States Census data, this essay examines the work and income data of Nigerian immigrants in the United States. The essay begins by examining the education or degree attainment rates (bachelor’s and master’s degrees) of Nigerians in the United States in 1990. It examines employment rates of Nigerians in the civilian labor force in 1990. It also examines the median household and family incomes and poverty rates of Nigerians in the United States in 1990. All of the above rates are then compared to the average for the general United States population for that same year. Furthermore, the various rates for Nigerians are compared to the rates of some of the largest and dominant ancestry groups in the country.

The comparisons between Nigerians in the United States and the general population and some selected ancestry groups show that, Nigerians are more educated, with higher proportion of them in the civilian labor force. However, the United States Census data revealed that, despite their relative high academic degree attainment and employment rates compared to the general population and other dominant ancestry groups, Nigerians in the United States earn far less in median household and family incomes in 1990. Higher proportions of Nigerians are also in poverty during that same year.

The second part of the paper then proceeds to explain this paradox by presenting several factors attempting to explain why highly educated Nigerians in the United States tend to have far less median household and family incomes in 1990. Let us now begin by examining the academic degree attainment rates of Nigerians, the general population and selected ancestry groups in the United States in 1990.

Degree Attainment Rates of Nigerians in the United States in 1990

On the ancestry page on its website, the United States Census presents educational attainment data in a table (Table 1) for persons in the United States aged 25 and over for 68 ancestry groups including Nigerians. The educational attainment rates are for percent of high school diploma or higher, bachelor’s degree or higher and graduate degree or higher, all in 1990.

According to the table, in 1990, out of 158.9 million people in the United States aged 25 and over, 20.3 percent had bachelor’s degree or higher and 7.2 percent had graduate degree or higher. For 52,388 Nigerians aged 25 and over, 52.9 percent had bachelor’s degree or higher and 26.3 percent had graduate degree or higher. The 52.9 percent of Nigerians with bachelor’s degree or higher were second only to another African group, Egyptians, with 60.4 percent. The 26.3 percent of Nigerians with graduate degree or higher was the highest rate among all 68 ancestry groups listed.

For comparative purposes, the proportion of some of the largest and most dominant ancestry groups listed in that table were as follow: For 16.4 million people of English descent aged 25 and over, 28.4 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 10.3 percent had at least graduate degree. For 29.5 million people of German descent, 22 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 7.3 percent had at least graduate degree. For 15.4 million people of Irish descent, 21.2 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 7.2 percent had at least graduate degree. For 7.5 million people of Italian descent, 21 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 7.4 percent had at least graduate degree. For 4.5 million people of Polish descent, 23.1 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 9 percent had at least graduate degree. For 4.1 million people of French descent, 18.2 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 6.1 percent had at least graduate degree. For 3.3 million people of Scottish-Irish descent, 28.2 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 10.1 percent had at least graduate degree. For 2.5 million people of Scottish descent, 33.6 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 12.2 percent had at least graduate degree. For 2.4 million people of Dutch descent, 18.5 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 6.4 percent had at least graduate degree. Finally, for 2 million people of Swedish descent, 27.4 percent had at least bachelor’s degree and 9.1 percent had at least graduate degrees.4

The above statistics show that Nigerians in the United States are at the top of the ladder in 1990 in educational attainment. Their average rate in bachelor’s degree attainment was 36.6 percentage points higher than the national average and doubled and tripled many of the dominant groups in the country in 1990. Their average rate in graduate degree attainment in 1990 was 19.1 percentage points higher than the national average and more than doubled many of the dominant ethnic groups in the country.

It is useful to note that many other research studies in the past two decades have also noted the high rate of college degrees of African immigrants, including Nigerians in the United States (Butcher 1994; Dodoo 1997; “Profile of the Foreign-Born,” 2001; Takyi 2002; Logan and Deane 2003).

In a study of blacks in the United States, Logan and Deane (2003, August 15) claim that by the year 2000 African immigrants have higher rates of schooling (14.0 years) than black-Caribbeans (12.6 years), native born blacks (12.4 years), and even white and Asian Americans (p.5). According to a 2001 United States Census report, the proportion of the 700,000 African immigrants in the United States (as of March 2000) aged 25 and over with at least a bachelor’s degree was 49.3 percent, but only 25.6 percent for the general population (“Profile of the Foreign-Born,” 2001: 37). According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (JBHE 2000), “In 1997, 19.4 percent of all adult African immigrants in the United States held a graduate degree” (p.60). Let us now examine the employment rates of Nigerians in the United States, the general population and selected other ancestry groups in 1990.

Labor Force Participation Rates of Nigerians and Selected Other Groups, 1990.

Nigerian immigrants in the United States appear to be among the groups with the highest employment rates, but as we may learn later in the paper, such high rates may not be full-time year-round. In 1990, out of 198.8 million people in the United States aged 16 and over, 64.4 percent were in the civilian labor force. For 61,200 Nigerians in the United States aged 16 and over during that same year, 75 percent were in the labor force. The only two ancestry groups with higher rates than Nigerians were from majority black nations in the New World (Haiti, 75.9 percent and Trinidad and Tobago, 75.6 percent).

For comparative purposes, the proportion of some of the largest and most dominant ancestry groups were as follow: 61.8 percent for people of English descent; 68.2 percent for people of German descent; 65.3 percent for people of Irish descent; 66.3 percent for people of Italian descent; 65.3 percent for people of Polish descent; 65.2 percent for people of French descent; 59.2 percent for people of Scottish-Irish descent; 65 percent for people of Scottish descent; 63.6 percent for people of Dutch descent, and; 65.6 percent for people of Swedish descent.5

The above data show that the proportion of Nigerians in the United States civilian workforce in 1990 was 10.6 percentage points higher than the national average and also doubled figure points higher than many of the dominant groups in the country. Let us now examine the median household and family incomes and poverty rates of Nigerians in the United States in 1990.

Median Household and Family Incomes and Poverty Rates of Nigerians in the U.S. in 1990.

In 1990, the median household and family incomes in the United States were $30,056 and $35,225 respectively. The average poverty rate for persons was 13.1 percent, and 10 percent for families. For Nigerians in the United States, their median household and family incomes in 1990 were $22,364 and $26,837 respectively. Their poverty rate for persons was 22.2 percent and 18.5 percent for families. Only three ancestry groups including Nigeria had poverty rates for persons that were 20 percent or more. The other two groups are of black African descent: Ethiopian 24.6 percent and Haitian, 22.2 percent. For poverty rates for families, Nigeria and those same two groups also had the highest poverty rates among the 68 ancestry groups listed. The rates were: 20.7 percent for Haitians, 19.9 percent for Ethiopians and 18.5 percent for Nigerians.

For comparative purposes, the median household and family incomes for some of the largest and most dominant ancestry groups in 1990 were as follow: $34,117 and 40,875 respectively for people of English descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 6.8 percent and 4.5 percent respectively); $32,730 and 38,216 respectively for people of German descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 7.7 percent and 5.5 respectively); $31,845 and 38,101 respectively for people of Irish descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 8.7 percent and 6.5 percent respectively); $36,060 and $42,242 respectively for people of Italian descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 6.9 percent and 4.9 percent respectively); $34,763 and 41,700 respectively for people of Polish descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 6.6 percent and 4.3 percent respectively); $30,696 and 36,237 respectively for people of French descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 9.3 percent and 7.2 percent respectively); $32,106 and 39,816 respectively for people of Scottish-Irish descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 6.1 percent and 3.9 percent respectively); $36,810 and 43,293 respectively for people of Scottish descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 5.8 percent and 3.5 percent respectively); $30,929 and 36,470 for people of Dutch descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 8.4 percent and 5.8 percent respectively), and; $33,881 and $40,459 respectively for people of Swedish descent (poverty rates for persons and family were 6.7 percent and 4.5 percent respectively).6

The above statistics on median household and family incomes show that the incomes of Nigerians were $7,692 and $8,388 respectively, lower than the national average. If higher levels of degree attainment should be associated with higher incomes, then why is that not the case with Nigerians in the United States in 1990? Also, why is it that Nigerians are among the most educated people in the United States in 1990, but their persons and family poverty rates doubled the national averages?

I have decided to attempt to answer these questions by suggesting that the following interrelated factors or reasons might have contributed to this paradox: (1) Citizenship Status, (2) Age (3) Race (skin color) and Skin Tone, (4) Assimilation and Acculturation, (5) Gender, (6) Geographic Region, and (7) Country of Origin of Professional Academic Degree.

It is useful to note that in attempting to explain these factors, generalizations will be made of African immigrants in the United States as a whole since for the most part studies of Nigerians in the United States are not separated from other African immigrants. Also, as already noted, just as the experiences of Nigerians in the Old World are similar to those of other black Africans in Africa, so also the experiences of Nigerian immigrants in the New World, especially the United States are similar to those of other black African immigrants. In the instances, however, where specific data are found for only Nigerians in the United States, then, they will be utilized. Let us now examine each of these factors that might be responsible for Nigerians in the United States having the highest rates of educational attainment in 1990, but making substantially less median household and family incomes during that same year.

(1) Citizenship Status

Citizenship status is one major factor negatively impacting the income levels of Nigerian and other African immigrants in general in the United States, despite their high rate of formal education. That is because there are government laws that give preference first to citizens or native-born Americans. In Moore and Foster’s study, in 1990, 21.4 percent of Nigerian immigrants in the United States were citizens (p.38).

Immigrants may also tend to work part-time instead of full-time all year, but are still counted as employed. Since most African immigrants in the United States tend to be young on average and are enrolled either in high schools or colleges and universities, they tend to have limits as to how many hours they can work (usually no more than 20 hours a week) and they tend to be paid the minimum wage. African students in United States colleges and universities are also required by law not to work outside of their institutions. This means that while a higher proportion of Nigerian immigrants are counted as employed, a significant portion of them may be working part-time and making minimum wage.

In explaining why African immigrants have lower incomes despite their high rates of degree attainment, Moore and Foster (2002) point out that: “Citizenship status affects ones’ earnings ability because only citizens are able to hold federal jobs considered secure with good benefits” (p.35). Moore and Foster (2002) add that working part-time or full-time tend to affect one’s income since more hours or weeks worked will lead to more earnings: “They positively affect earnings since more hours and weeks of work, given the wage rate, translate into higher earnings” (p.35). Writing on this same issue, Butcher (1994) notes that: “The African immigrants, however, have the lowest earnings . . . report the smallest number of weeks worked.” In explaining why this happens, Butcher claims that “It is quite likely that many of the African immigrants are in the United States to attend graduate school. This explanation is consistent with their high levels of education, . . . their low annual wages and salaries, . . .” (pp.267-268).

Discrimination against immigrants is also cited as contributing to why Nigerian and other African immigrants are paid low salaries. It is explained that: “. . . discrimination may be a greater obstacle to immigrants when they try to enter high-paying jobs requiring high levels of education than when they try to enter lower-paying jobs requiring less education . . .” (Butcher 1994: 275).

(2) Age and Income Levels

Age tends to be a contributing factor in why Nigerian and African immigrants have low incomes. Nigerians and Africans in general are among the youngest people in the Old World as they are among the youngest people in the United States. For example, in 2006, 40.6 percent of the 910.8 million Africans were under age 15, but it was 42.3 percent of Nigerians. The median age was 19.6 years in Africa in 2006, but 18.7 years in Nigeria (Compiled and computed based on Data in CIA World Factbook, 2006). In the United States, out of the 700,000 African immigrants in the country in March 2000, 31 percent were under 25 years old (“Profile of the U.S. Foreign Born population,” 2001;27). Takyi (2002) shows in his study of 336,887 African immigrants that in 1990, 1.8 percent were under age 5, 10 percent from 5-17, 11.4 percent were 18-24, 73.4 percent were 25-64, and 3.4 percent were aged 64 and over (p.37). In a study of African immigrant males in the United States in 1990 from nine countries in Africa including Nigeria, the group with the youngest average age was Nigerians, 34.5 years (Moore and Foster, 2002:38).

Increasing numbers of African students in the United States are earning their professional degrees at very young age, part of the reason being the many immigration restrictions which forced them to keep seeking more advanced degrees because of fear of losing their immigration status if they leave college and cannot find a job. Moreover, when these young Nigerians and other Africans start work they are paid the lowest salary on the pay scale and they would not complain because the immigration laws are set up in a way that most of these young graduates cannot apply for change of status for themselves, only their employers have the right to do so. This puts them at a disadvantage. Butcher (1994) also points out that African immigrants in the United States are underpaid due to “. . . their relative youth, . . . ” (pp.267-268).

(3) Race (Skin Color) and Skin Tone

There are numerous academic publications claiming that both race (skin color) and skin tone play substantial roles in the income levels of black people, including Nigerian and African immigrants in the United States. In the United States, non-blacks tend to have more privileges and light skinned blacks also tend to have more privileges than dark skinned blacks. So here Nigerians and sub-Saharan Africans tend to suffer twice: (1) because of their race as blacks and (2) their relative dark skin. Furthermore, the race example brings out an important issue pertaining to African immigrants that is seldom discussed. That is white Southern Africans or white Africans and a substantial proportion of Arab Africans are categorized as white in the United States. This means that an Arab African who looks like the prominent Arab American Ralph Nada is white, while the late Egyptian president Anwar Sadat is black because he had a black mother from Sudan. This difference has a consequence that is not usually showed in statistics of African immigrants in the United States. That is, if one dissects the data for African immigrants, the white Africans tend to have higher incomes. Let us examine these variables of Race and Skin Tone.

Race and Income Levels

Dodoo (1997) points out that, African immigrants in the United States believe that they encounter prejudice due to their race. According to Dodoo, the late African American scholar, W.E.B. Du Bois once “. . . noted that prejudice towards Africans was undergirded by condescending assumptions and stereotypes held by people of European descent” (p.530). This behavior is spread by the negative image of Africa in the Western media: “The extreme negative stereotyping of Africa in the media significantly devalues African culture in the eyes of many Westerners . . .” (p.530). Reitz and Sklar (1997) note that: “In producing the observed earnings disadvantages of racial minorities, net of education and other human capital, the importance of discrimination based strictly on skin color as opposed to direct or systemic disadvantages related to culture, group attachments, or racial identity, is up to now unknown” (pp.238-239). According to the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (2000):

This brings us to data on African immigrants and differences with white Africans in the United States. In his study of African immigrants in the United States in 1990, Takyi (2002) presents data that show the proportion of Africans each sending African nation had in the country. For example, black Africans from Nigeria comprised 30.2 percent of all African immigrants in the study during that year, 18.1 percent for Ethiopia, 10.5 percent for Ghana, 5.8 percent for Liberia, 3.6 percent for Kenya, 3.5 percent for Sierra Leone, and 2 percent for Uganda.

When the data is broken down into black-Africans and non-black Africans, Egypt had the highest proportion of non-black Africans among all non-black African immigrants in the United States in the study in 1990 (31.3 percent), with only 0.3 percent of black African Egyptians comprising the share of black Africans. The other nations after Egypt with high proportions of non-black Africans among the total non-black African population in the United States in1990 were South Africa (21.8 percent, but only 1.6 percent of black-South Africans as a share of the black African population), 11.6 percent for Morocco, 4.6 percent for Libya, 2.7 percent for Algeria, 2.6 percent for Zimbabwe, 2.2 percent each for Ethiopia and Tunisia, 2 percent for Kenya, 1.9 percent for Cape Verde and 1.8 percent for Nigeria (p.36).

As a result, when one finds data showing progress of Nigerians and African immigrants in general in the United States, one must be mindful of the racial differences. For example, the median household income for African immigrants in 1999 was $36,371, but $41,733 for foreign-born immigrants from Europe and $41,383 for the native-born United States population (“Profile of the U.S. Foreign Born population,” 2001;45). The median earnings for Egyptian males in the United States was $42,655 (Brittingham and de la Cruz, 2005: 4). Of 400,000 African immigrants aged 16 and over in 2000 in the United States, 36.5 percent were in managerial and professional specialty (“Profile of the U.S. Foreign Born population,” 2001:41), but in 2000, 50.5 percent of Egyptians were in Managerial, professional and related occupations (Brittingham, Angela and de la Cruz, G. Patricia. 2005: 13).

There were also significant differences in income and job category between African immigrants coming from African nations with individuals who are categorized as white in the United States and black African immigrants in the study in 1990. Takyi (2002) presents figures that showed that among all black African immigrants in 1990, 22.1 percent were in Executive/Professional positions and 11.1 percent were in Agriculture/operator; but it was 32.3 percent and 5.6 percent respectively for non-black Africans from Africa in the country (p.37). The mean personal earnings of all African immigrants in the United States in 1990, according to Takyi’s (2002) study was $16,520, and the median earnings was $9,600; within the black African group, it was 13,058 and $9,113 respectively; within the non-black African (from Africa) group, it was $20,996 and $10,000 respectively (p.38). Moore and Foster’s (2002) study of African immigrants in the United States in 1990 focuses on immigrants males from the following nine countries: Cape Verde, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa. This author extracted Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa from the group to determine whether those immigrants from Egypt and South Africa (who are likely to have substantial portions of individuals to be categorized as white in the United States) for any significant differences in earnings and other important variables. The weighted sample size for Nigerians was 10,059, Egyptians, 5,673 and South Africans, 26,223.

Some of the findings showed that in 1990, each of the three immigrant groups had 14 years of education. In 1990, the average earnings of Nigerian males was $22,058, $59,880 for South Africans, and $41,585 for Egyptians; Nigerians worked 41.4 hours per week, 47.6 hours for South Africans, and 44.5 hours for Egyptians; Nigerians worked for 45 weeks, 48.1 weeks for South Africans, and 47.2 weeks for Egyptians; Finally, 67.1 percent of Nigerians were professional workers, 32.7 percent were Blue-Collar workers and 0.2 percent were farm worker; 87.8 percent, 12 percent and 0.2 percent respectively for South Africans; and 73.4 percent, 26.6 percent and 0 percent respectively for Egyptians (p.38).

Skin Tone and Income Levels

There are numerous scholarly publications claiming that light skinned blacks in the United States tend to have more privileges, including household income than dark skinned blacks. The same has also been observed for Mexican and Cuban Americans: “Today, dark-skinned Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans continue to face higher levels of discrimination in the labor market, . . .” (Espino and Franz, 2002:612). For black and Hispanic/Latino Americans with light skin, they are also reported to suffer less severely than their dark skinned counterparts from punishment from the Criminal Justice system in the United States. Hochschild et al. (2004) note that: “lighter blacks and Latinos have . . . (in some studies) lower rates of incarceration . . . than do their darker-skinned counterparts” (p.1). It has also been pointed out that the percentage of all African Americans with dark skin who were convicted of murdering a white person who were sentenced to death was 54 percent, but 24 percent for those with light skin.7

Pertaining to skin tone and earnings, Hersch (2006) points out in a study of African Americans that: “there is an earnings penalty of about 20 percent for all men with darker skin tone relative to men with light or very light skin tone,. . .” (p.252). According to Hersch, one of the explanations for the gap might be: “. . . that those with lighter skin tone are considered more attractive, and attractiveness itself is associated with superior economic outcomes . . .” (p.254). In another study of immigrant workers in the United States from all parts of the world including Nigeria and other African nations, Hersch (2007) claims that: “Immigrants with the lightest skin color earn on average 8 to 15 percent more than comparable immigrants with the darkest skin tone” (p.1).

Keith and Herring (1991) point out in their study that: “. . . very light respondents are substantially more likely to be employed as professional and technical workers than are those with darker complexions. In contrast, those with very dark complexions are more likely than all others to be laborers” (p.768). According to Hochschild (2006) in a study of 9,000 African Americans conducted in the early 1990s in the cities of Atlanta, Boston, Detroit and Los Angeles found that the: “Mean family incomes range from about $23,200 for the dark-skinned, to $24,800 for the medium-skinned, to $25,900 for the light-skinned. Put another way, families of dark skinned African Americans enjoy about nine-tenths as much income as families of light-skinned African Americans” (p.476). Finally, Breland (1998) points out in a study that, blacks in the United States: “with lighter skin have greater education, occupational prestige, personal income, and family income than their darker skinned peers . . . ” (p.301). According Breland:

(4) Assimilation and Acculturation

Assimilation and acculturation have also been cited by scholars as contributing to low annual earnings of immigrants, including African immigrants in the United States. According to Morawska (2004), assimilation is “. . . a multipath process, involving the incorporation of immigrants and their offspring into the economic, political and social institutions and culture of different segments of the host society” (p.1375). As for acculturation, Schwartz et al. (2006) note that: “In most cases, the immigration experience is accompanied by acculturation. In the most general terms, acculturation can be defined as ‘the process of cultural change and adaptation that occurs when individuals from different cultures come into contact’” (p.2).

In explaining how assimilation and acculturation impact immigrants, Putnam (2006) discusses how social networks play a vital role:

Immigrants in general and certainly Nigerian and other African immigrants in developed nations including the United States have a history of remaining in close-knit cultural communities, comprising in many instances mostly members of their ethnic groups. This then might cause a challenge for upward mobility because these individuals tend to be isolating themselves from members of the dominant society who might recommend them for better jobs or promotions. For example, Sylviane A. Diouf, a scholar at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in New York City, New York, who conducts research on African immigration in the United States is quoted as saying: “Africans [in the United States] represent a new type of immigrant. . . . They are transnationals, people who choose to maintain their separateness in the host country and retain tight links to their community of origin” (Zachary, 2006:51). Reitz and Sklar (1997) point out that: “The classic hypothesis is that persons whose ethnic culture, identity, behaviors, social networks, and institutional affiliations are maintained experience personal costs in lost opportunity for good jobs and high earnings” (p.234). In the case of black Africans it becomes an even bigger challenge since they also experience severe race-based discrimination, compared to white or European immigrants. As Reitz and Sklar (1997) note

The assimilation theory claims that when immigrants first arrive in the United States, they must try to adjust, including learning the language and behaviors of the mainstream population. It is during this period that these immigrants must attempt to establish relationships with the mainstream population in order to increase their chance of getting better jobs. Butcher (1994) points to research that shows that since immigrants, even those with high levels of education are less skilled in knowing how their host society operates “. . . assimilation is still a very important factor in the changes of their incomes over time” (pp.275-278).

Assimilation and acculturation are also connected to duration in the United States, since the longer an immigrant resides in the country the more likely that he or she may establish various types of relationships with members of the dominant population. Nigerian and Africans in general are among the groups with high proportions to have arrived in the United States in the past 15 years. For example, the median length of residence of the 28.4 million foreign-born population in the United States as of March 2000 was 14.4 years, but only 10.2 years for the 700,000 African immigrants during that period (“Profile of the U.S. Foreign Born population,” 2001:19). Moore and Foster (2002) note that:

(5) Gender and Income Levels

The issue of gender inequality may play a significant role in the relatively low incomes of educated Nigerians and sub-Saharan Africans in the United States. For example, in 1990, 29.2 percent of Nigerian immigrant females and 70.8 percent of Nigerian immigrant males aged 16 and over were in the civilian labor force.8 It is useful to note that there are more African immigrant males than females in the United States. For example, of the 336,887 African immigrants in 1990 in Takyi’s (2002) study, males were 59.4 percent and females 40.6 percent (p.37). In 2000, there were 140.1 African immigrant males for every 100 African immigrant females (“Profile of the U.S. Foreign Born population,” 2001:27).

According to Weinberg (2004), in the United States “. . . the female-to-male earnings ratio at the median for year-round, full-time workers was 77 percent in 2002 . . . ” (p.11). But the gap might be even wider for black Nigerian and African immigrant females, who suffer many layers of discrimination. As Reitz and Sklar (1997) note: “Consideration of gender and the interaction of race and gender reinforce these serious doubts about cultural pluralism. Women in minority groups could be even more vulnerable than men to the costs of ethnicity” (p.236).

Pertaining to skin tone and gender, Hunter (1998) notes: “I hypothesized that light-skinned women would have higher educational attainment, [and] higher personal incomes . . . than would darker-skinned women” (p.517). Dodoo (1997) also asks the following questions: “Will the African female be encumbered by four strikes – race, immigrant status, gender, and national (African) origin – interacting to place her at the bottom of the American stratification ladder?” Dodoo continues by pointing to research that claims that: “. . . with respect to occupational status, discrimination disadvantages African women more than any other group, . . . ” (p.543). Wade et al. (2004) examined data of black job applicants that revealed that: “Fair-skinned applicants were expected to receive better ratings from men, while dark-skinned applicants were expected to receive better ratings from women or ratings from women would not differ” (p.2550). According to Hill (2002): “Numerous observers have suggested that skin color has more bearing on the lives of African American women than of African American men . . . ” (p.78).

(6) Geographic Region and Income Levels

Geographic location might be contributing to the low income levels of Nigerian and sub-Saharan African immigrants in the United States. Like the native born black population, a very large proportion of African immigrants, a majority of Nigerians and more than half of African Americans reside in the South. For example, according to Dodoo’s 1997 study of African immigrants in the United State, in 1990, 45.5 percent of African immigrants were in the South (p.534). According to Moore and Foster’s (2002) study, in 1990, 50.6 percent of Nigerians immigrants in the United States resided in the South (p.38). As of July 1, 2005, there were 39.7 million African Americans in the United States.9 As of January 28, 2004, 55 percent of America’s black population resided in the South.10

In the United States, however, of the four main regions (Northeast, Midwest, South and West), a higher proportion of people in the South are in poverty and have lower annual incomes. For example, in 2005, there 37, 040,000 (12.6 percent of total U.S. population) people in the United States, below the poverty level;14 percent were in the South; 12.6 percent in the West; 11.4 percent in the Midwest, and; 11.3 percent in the Northeast (DeNavas-Walt, et al, 2006: 14). In 2005, the median household income in the United States was $46,326; $50,882 in the Northeast; $50,002 in the West; $45,950 in the Midwest, and; 42,138 in the South (DeNavas-Walt, et al, 2006: 6). According to Moore and Foster (2002):

(7) Academic Degree and Income Levels

An important factor that has been cited as contributing to the low incomes of educated Nigerian and sub-Saharan African immigrants in the United States is the country where they received or earned their academic degrees or diplomas. As a result, Nigerian and sub-Saharan African immigrants with foreign academic degrees may find themselves in mismatch jobs, whereby they may be over-qualified for the positions that they have. According to Dodoo’s 1997 study of African immigrants in the United States, in 1990, 33.2 percent of them had foreign degrees (p.534). Butcher (1994) notes that if one were to put aside discrimination, other reasons why highly educated immigrants in the United States might have problems getting good jobs is that those employers might not know how to judge foreign academic degrees from abroad, because they are not familiar with the academic standards of the institutions that awarded those degrees. Another explanation is that highly educated illegal immigrants “. . . cannot use their credentials to acquire jobs commensurate with their education levels.” Butcher continues by noting that: “Highly educated people from foreign countries may be the victims not of explicit xenophobia, but of a lack of information. Another possible explanation is that education in many foreign countries is actually of lower quality than that of the United States . . .” (pp.275-278).

In attempting to answer this question as to why highly educated African immigrants in the United States are underpaid, especially for those with academic degrees from abroad, Dodoo (1997) claims that: “Apparently, foreign qualifications of Africans, presumably gained in their home countries, are not valued as highly as American. . . . Does that mean African degrees are qualitatively inferior, perhaps because they are less transfererable . . . ? Or, could it be that these degrees are only considered inferior?” (p.541). Dodoo then continues by asking: “. . . Could Africans be selecting themselves into mismatch jobs, for which they overqualified but underpaid?.” Dodoo adds by pointing to research that “. . . argued that for immigrants, mismatching is positively associated with education. Indeed, a relative inclination of Africans to accept mismatches because of relatively lower cost of living in African countries . . .” (p.542).

A study of the employment status of African immigrants with doctorates in France, for example, where they are not even allowed to apply for jobs for tens of professions, shows that many of them end up accepting mismatched jobs despite their high level of education: “In our sample, 31 of the 70 doctorate holders worked as doormen in hotels, security agents, or warehousemen” (Gueye, 2002: 63).

Conclusion

This paper has presented numerous examples showing the paradox of people of Nigerian descent at home in Africa and abroad in the United States, whereby, like sub-Saharan Africans in general, they are rich in strategic natural and human resources but statistics show that they are among the poorest people in the world. And in the United States, while Nigerian and sub-Saharan African immigrants are among the most highly educated people in the country, they still tend to be underpaid compared to others with their educational level, despite the fact that high levels of educational attainment is correlated with higher incomes or earnings. The factors for Nigeria’s paradox in Africa include the “Brain Drain,” civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone where Nigeria played a leading role by investing massive amounts of scarce national resources to stop the wars, and corruption by government officials. The factors for the paradox of highly educated Nigerian immigrants in the United States include citizenship status, race and skin tone discrimination, age, gender, geographic location, assimilation, and country where academic degrees were attained.

Bibliography

Bergman, Mike. 2007, March 15. “Earnings Gap Highlighted by Census Bureau Data on Educational Attainment,” U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Breland, Alfiee M. 1998. “A Model for Differential Perceptions of Competence Based on Skin Tone Among African Americans,” Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 26, (4): 294-311.

Brittingham, Angela and de la Cruz, G. Patricia. 2005, March. “We the People of Arab Ancestry in the United States,” U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. “Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with Native Blacks and Other Immigrants,” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 47, (2):265-284.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): World Factbook. 2006. Superintendent of Documents. P.O. Box 371954. Pittsburgh, P.A. 15250-7954.

Collin, P.H. 1999. Editor. Webster’s Student Dictionary. New York: Barnes & Noble.

DeNavas-Walt, Carmen., Proctor, Bernadette D., and Lee, Cheryl Hill. 2006, August. “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” United States Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Dodoo, F. Nii-Amoo. 1997. “Assimilation Differences among Africans in America, Social Forces, 76, (2): 527-546.

Espino, Rodolfo and Franz, Michael M. 2002. “Latino Phenotypic Discrimination Revisited: The Impact of Skin Color on Occupational Status,” Social Science Quarterly, 83, (2): 612-623.

Gueye, A. (2002). Dark Side of the African Brain Drain: Experiences of Africans Holding Doctoral Degrees in Social Sciences and Humanities Living in France. African Issues, XXX (1), 62-65.

Guseh, James. S., and Oritsejafor, Emmanuel. 2007. “Government Size, Political Freedom and Economic Growth in Nigeria, 1960-2000,” Journal of Third World Studies, 24, (1): 139-165.

Hersch, Joni. 2006. “Skin-Tone Effects among African Americans: Perceptions and Reality,” AEA Papers and Proceedings, 96, (2): 251-255.

Hersch, Joni. “Profiling the New Immigrant Worker: The Effects of Skin Color and Height,” Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting, in San Francisco on February 19, 2007.

Hill, Mark E. 2002. “Skin Color and the Perception of Attractiveness Among African Americans: Does Gender Make a Difference?,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, (1): 77-91.

Hochschild, Jennifer., Burch, Traci., and Weaver, Vesla. 2004. “Intra-Racial Differences in Blacks? Political Participation: Does Skin Color Matter?,” Conference Papers – Midwestern Political Science Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL, pp.1-20.

Hochschild, Jennifer. 2006. “When Do People Not Protest Unfairness? The Case of Skin Color Discrimination,” Social Research, 73, (2): 473-498.

Hunter, Margaret. 1998. “Colorstruck: Skin Color Stratification in the Lives of African American Women,” Sociological Inquiry, 68, (4):517-535.

Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, “News and Views: African Immigrants in the United States are the Nation’s Most Highly Educated Group,” Issue 26, page 60.

Kaba, Amadu J.“The Two West Africas: the Two Historical Phases of the West African Brain Drain,” 2007. Journal of Pan African Studies, 1, (8): 77-92.

Keith, Verna M. and Herring, Cedric. 1991. “Skin Tone and Stratification in the Black Community,” American Journal of Sociology, 97, (3): 760-778.

Mc Auliffe, Eilish and MacLachlan, Malcolm. 2005. “‘Turning the Ebbing Tide’: Knowledge Flows and Health in Low-income Countries,” Higher Education Policy, 18, (3):231-242.

Moore, Ami R. and Amey, Foster K. 2002. “Earnings Differentials Among Male African Immigrants in the United States,” Equal Opportunity International, 21, (8): 30-50.

Morawska, Ewa. 2004. “Exploring Diversity in Immigrant Assimilation and Transnationalism: Poles and Russian Jews in Philadelphia,” The International Migration Review, 38, (4): 1272-1412.

Nuamah, Rosemary. 2003, July. “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy after the Cold War: Domestic, Regional and External Influences,” International Peace Academy. Program on Strengthening Africa’s Security Mechanisms and Actors. University of Oxford. Oxford,United Kingdom. Retrieved on January 21, 2008 from: http://www.ipacademy.org/pdfs/NIGERIAS_FOREIGN_POLICY.pdf.

“Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000,” United States Census Bureau, December 2001, pp. 23-206. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Putnam, Robert D. 2007. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture,” Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, (2): 137-174).

Reitz, Jeffrey G., and Sklar, Sherrilyn M. 1997. “Culture, Race, and the Economic Assimilation of Immigrants,” Sociological Forum, 12 (2): 233-277.

Schwartz, Seth. J., Montgomery, Marilyn. J., and Briones, Ervin. 2006. “The Role of Identity in Acculturation among Immigrant People: Theoretical Propositions, Empirical Questions, and Applied Recommendations,” Human Development, 49:1-30.

Schneider, Friedrich and Enste, Dominik. 2000. “Shadow economies: Size, causes, and consequences,” Journal of Economic Literature, 38, (1): 77-114.

Takyi, Baffour K. 2002. “The Making of the Second Diaspora: On the Recent African Immigrant Community in the United States of America,” The Western Journal of Black Studies, 26, (1):32-43.

United States Census Bureau. (2002, July 18). Census Bureau Report Shows 'Big Payoff' from Educational Degrees. CB02-95. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved on February 18, 2004, from http://www.census.gov/Press-

United States Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrix PCT19. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Wade, T. Joel., Romano, Melanie Judkins., and Blue, Leslie. 2004. “The Effect of African American Skin Color on Hiring Preferences,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, (12): 2550-2558.

Watts, Michael. 2006. “Empire of Oil: Capitalist Dispossession and the Scramble for Africa,” Monthly Review, 58, (4): 1-17.

Weinberg, Daniel H. 2004. “Evidence from Census 2000 About Earnings by Detailed Occupation for Men and Women,” U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Werlin, Herbert H. 2005. “Corruption in a Third World Country: Why Nigerians Cannot Handle Garbage,” World Affairs, 168, (2): 79-85.

Zachary, Pascal. G., 2006. “The Hotel Africa,” The Wilson Quarterly, 30, (3): 48-55.

Notes and References

1 Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved on July 4, 2007 at: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paradox.

2 Adejumo, Akintokunbo, “The Illusions and Delusions of ‘Nigerians in Diaspora’,’” Paper posted on the “USA-Africa Dialogue Server. http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue. Paper retrieved on June 8, 2007.

3 Crary, David. 2007, June 16. “African immigrants find opportunity,” Associated Press, posted on Yahoo News.

4 “Table 1. Educational Attainment for Selected Ancestry Groups,” 1990. U.S. Census Bureau: Washington, D.C. Retrieved on June 1, 2007 at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/ancestry.html.

5 “Table 3. Labor Force Characteristics for Selected Ancestry Groups,” 1990. Retrieved on June 1, 2007 at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/ancestry.html.

6 “Table 4. Income and Poverty for Selected Ancestry Groups,” 1990. Retrieved on June 1, 2007 at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/ancestry.html.

7 “Vital Signs: Statistics That Measure the State of Racial Inequality,” Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Issue No. 51, Spring 2006.

8 “Table 3. Labor Force Characteristics for Selected Ancestry Groups,” 1990. Retrieved on June 1, 2007 at: http://www.census.gov/population/www/ancestry.html.

9 “Fact for Features Black History Month: February 2007,” 2005, December 5. U.S. Census Bureau. CB07-FF.01. Washington, D.C.

10 “Fact for Features African American History Month: February 2004,” 2004, January 28. U.S. Census Bureau. CB04-FF.02. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Amadu Jacky Kaba. “Educational Attainment, Income Levles aand Africans in the United States: The Paradox of Nigerian Immigrants” West Africa Review: Issue 11, 2007.

Abstract