Latin-American Studies

    The barrios of Guadalupe and Chavez have institutions of poverty that come from the social, cultural, and political dynamics within the community and also impact on these three similar spheres. As identified by Dohan (2003), there are three institutions in these three barrios. There are specific characteristics that these three institutions hold and affect the live of the people living in the two communities. In relation to this, the institutions of poverty are related with deindustrialization wherein the latter influences poverty in a variety of ways (Dohan, 2003).

The Three Institutions of Poverty
    In the book written by Dohan, there are three institutions of poverty that exists in Guadalupe and Chavez. The institutions include social networks, indigenous organizations, and subcultures (Dohan, 2003, p. 218). Within each of these institutions of poverty, there are several elements that define the distinct role it plays in the community. First, social networks are referred to as the connections that are used by the members of the barrios in search for jobs (Dohan, 2003, p. 218-219). It can be noticed that there are jobs that are seemingly dominated by some ethnoracial groups because of their significant presence measured in terms of numbers.

Second, the indigenous organizations represent the segregation of the people who are given sources of income through illegal means from those who are not (Dohan, 2003, p. 219). The differentiation is based on the locations where most police crackdowns occur. Naturally, the illegal groups would patronize the areas where disturbance from police does not happen or is less likely to happen. To a certain extent, it can be noticed that the selective nature of the police crackdowns is contributory to the existence of the second institution of poverty.

Third, the local subcultures are dictated by the family structure in determining the aid that is to be received (Dohan, 2003, p. 219). The welfare reliance of people is practically dependent on the structure of their family as it also determines their needs. In the real setting, the consumption of the family would have to be based on the number of the members and the role that each one takes.

In general, the race, family structure, and the neighborhood influence the three institutions of poverty mentioned above. The variable of race is emphasized in social networks where certain ethnic races are dominant in some of the jobs. As for the family structure, it is a stark element in local subcultures and is used for determining the aid to be divided among the families. Lastly, the activity of police within certain neighborhoods provides advantages for the illegal organizations.

Operations of the Institutions of Poverty
    There are certain similarities and differences observed in relation to the operations of these institutions in Guadalupe and Chavez. In terms of social networks, both Guadalupes and Chavezs low-wage employment sectors are dictated by the informal social networks built by the people (Dohan, 2003, p. 12). At the center of this informal social network, which is found in the local level, are the popular families and Mexican-American individuals that have their influence in the community, the educational sector, and the workplace (Dohan, 2003, p. 12). However, the social networks in Guadalupe include transnational connections to include the people they know in Mexico as compared to the absence of such in Chavez (Dohan, 2003, p. 12-13). Due to this, the people of Guadalupe saw low-wage jobs as means for upward social mobility. On the other hand, the people in Chavez consider the low-income jobs as a hopeless case or, in the words of Dohan (2003), their economic and social dead ends (p. 13).

    In relation to illegal organizations, both the barrios of Guadalupe and Chaves serve as homes to illegal activities. As for Guadalupe, most of the residents who came from Mexico are involved in the informal economy (Dohan, 2003, p 13). In order for these institutions to continuously operate, the local organizations legalize the activities by erasing the differences between the legal and illegal economies through violent means (Dohan, 2003, p. 13). On the other hand, Chavez residents commonly participate in the illegal economies that cater to illegal goods and services. To ensure that their activities would be sustained, the local organizations in Chavez built institutions that would administer the costs derived for joining the illegal economies, which is a process referred to as normalization (Dohan, 2003, p. 13). By providing them with sources of income, the illegal organizations are considered as means of upward mobility for those who participate in it.

    Lastly, the idea of welfare recipients and subcultures are treated fairly the same in both barrios but with some differences. People living in Chavez and Guadalupe do not consider welfare assistance to be a source of income and those who receive this are considered differently in their society (Dohan, 2003, p. 14). Nonetheless, there is still a great deal of dependence in varying degrees for this type of aid. Considering the great need of people for assistance in Chavez, a long-term dependence on this is observed (Dohan, 2003, p. 14). On the other hand, the people of Guadalupe only consider this as necessary for short periods of time. For the people in Chavez, even though they see welfare assistance negatively, their dependence on it helps them in uplifting their social status but remains very low. On the other hand, the people of Guadalupe considers the dependence on welfare assistance as a picture of downward social mobility.