New Darity and Myers book reviewed

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by EH.NET (February, 2000)

William A. Darity, Jr. and Samuel L. Myers, Jr., _Persistent Disparity:
Race and Economic Inequality in the United States since 1945_. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar, 1998. xiii + 191 pp. $80 (cloth), ISBN: 1-85898-658-3;
$25 (paper), ISBN: 1-85898-665-6.

Reviewed for EH.NET by William A. Sundstrom <wsundstrom@xxxxxxx>,
Department of Economics, Santa Clara University

Occasionally enlightening, often frustrating, this book examines the
continuing gap in economic status between white Americans and
African-Americans. The authors stake out a pessimistic position, arguing
that the perceived relative economic progress of blacks during the 1960s
and 1970s was largely illusory. Furthermore, they contend, the stagnation
or erosion of black relative incomes since the 1970s cannot be attributed
to rising general inequality or changing family structure. Rather, racial
discrimination in the labor market has played an important ongoing role.

Darity (Professor of Economics, University of North Carolina) and Myers
(Professor of Human Relations and Social Justice, University of Minnesota)
propose a link between increased discrimination and the general trend
toward greater income inequality of the last 30 years, arguing in the
introductory chapter that "Job losses and earnings losses for white males
who are the 'victims' of the unequalizing spiral will lead them to
intensify their efforts to preserve their remaining occupational turf and
to squeeze black workers further down the occupational ladder" (p. 3). An
intriguing possibility, to be sure, but a reader expecting to find direct
evidence of this endogenous discrimination will be disappointed.

Instead, much of the monograph is devoted to undermining competing
explanations of changes in the black-white gap. This it does with mixed
success. The authors are compelling in their claim that evidence of wage
convergence between blacks and whites before the 1980s is severely biased
by the exclusion of non-earners from the comparison. Whereas the median
wage of black workers converged toward that of white workers during the
1960s and 1970s, convergence disappears if one includes nonworkers and
assigns them a wage in the lower half of the distribution. Similarly,
family incomes fail to show the same racial convergence as the wages of
individual workers over the same period.

Thus the evidence supports a claim of economic polarization within the
African-American population during the 1960s and 1970s, with employed
blacks experiencing gains relative to whites, but a substantial segment of
un- and underemployed blacks (who would be labeled the "underclass")
falling further behind. Darity and Myers suggest that this mixed picture
undermines the views of the "optimists," including James Smith, Finis
Welch, and Richard Freeman, who have argued that improved educational
opportunities and/or diminished labor-market discrimination contributed to
large gains for blacks before the 1980s.

It is not entirely clear, however, why the authors think one must reject
the optimists' explanations for progress on the part of those
African-Americans who did succeed. Darity and Myers assert that the rise
of a black professional class during these decades was due to "the growth
in public sector employment opportunities in social welfare agencies
attributable to the Johnson Administration's Great Society programmes" (p.
52), although they provide little supporting evidence. It seems unlikely
that public employment explains the emergence of the black middle class as
a whole.

The book's central chapters present the authors' analysis of data from the
Current Population Survey regarding the role of the racial "skills gap"
and racial differences in family structure in generating income inequality
between the races. Darity and Myers present truly bleak figures
documenting the widening of the racial gap in incomes for families with
poorly educated family heads. Among families headed by young people with
less than a high school education, the black-white ratio of family incomes
dropped from about 70 percent in 1970 to about 50 percent in 1991. By
contrast, the racial gap was virtually unchanged among families headed by
older, better-educated persons.

In Darity and Myers's view, this evidence tends to refute a widely held
explanation of the erosion of black relative gains during the 1980s:
namely, that the growing return to skills exacerbated racial inequality
because blacks tended to have lower skills on average. If this were the
case, argue the authors, then the least skilled whites should have done no
better than the least skilled blacks. Instead, we observe the racial gap
widening even among high school dropouts, suggesting that something more
than skill differentials is at work. This conclusion is bolstered by
earnings regression results, which suggest that racial differences in the
return to schooling actually narrowed between 1976 and 1985.

The role of rising general inequality cannot be dismissed quite so easily,
however. It is well established that recent increases in inequality
occurred within skill groups as well as between them. In regression terms,
the variance of the residual in standard earnings equations has increased.
If black workers tend to fall in the lower tail of that earnings residual,
whether because of discrimination or unobserved skill differences, the
increased spread in the residual could also increase racial inequality, a
point demonstrated empirically in the important work of Chinhui Juhn and
co-authors. (Robert Margo and Thomas Maloney have also shown that the
reverse process helped narrow racial pay differentials during the "great
compression" of wage inequality during the 1940s.)

Darity and Myers focus much of their data analysis on the incomes of
families and family heads, and naturally they must consider the role of
changing family structure. Disputing the conventional wisdom, they claim
that the rising rate of female headship "is not even a weak candidate" for
explaining the reversal of relative black economic progress after the
mid-1970s (p. 87). The reason given is essentially that rates of female
headship rose as rapidly among whites as among blacks during these years.

This is true, but rather misleading. Among white families, the percentage
headed by females rose from 9 percent in 1970 to 13 percent in 1991. The
corresponding figure for African-Americans went from 28 to 46 percent. The
proportionate increases are thus not dissimilar, but the absolute change
in proportions may be more important. For instance, suppose that
female-headed households earned 50 percent of two-parent households, but
that within family types there were no racial income differences. Then in
1970, the black-white household income ratio would have been 0.90, falling
to 0.82 in 1991 on account of the change in family structure alone.

This is not to deny that racial discrimination in job and housing markets
has played a significant role in generating racial differences in family
structure. But changing family structure cannot be so readily dismissed as
an intermediate factor in generating trends in racial income inequality.

In fairness, later in the same chapter Darity and Myers report estimates
of the impact of increased female headship on the racial income gap from a
complex counterfactual exercise. They conclude that "less than 10 per cent
of the increase in racial earnings inequality among family heads can be
attributed to changes in the proportion of families headed by females" (p.
105). In their model, however, female headship apparently affects earnings
only through its impact on labor-force participation. It is not clear that
their model has captured the full impact of female headship to the extent
that it affects earnings in other ways (for example because women are paid
less than men).

Darity and Myers conclude their empirical analysis by noting that very
little of the change in racial income inequality between the 1970s and
1980s can be attributed to racial differences in measured characteristics.
Is this then evidence of differential treatment--i.e., labor-market
discrimination? Darity and Myers believe so. A reader familiar with this
highly contentious literature, however, will wonder about the role of
unmeasured factors, including school quality and family background, which
some argue show up in the much-discussed test-score gap between whites and
blacks.

The book's final two chapters discuss the political and economic
ramifications of various possible remedies to the problem of racial
economic inequality. Darity and Myers are deeply pessimistic about the
prospects of reducing racial income inequality in the United States any
time soon. They see the economic trends as largely negative, and the
political trends increasingly hostile to the race-based remedies that
might have the greatest chance of success.

Given all that has come before, the concluding chapter, which is in many
ways the most thought-provoking in the book, seems to come out of left
field with a plea for monetary reparations to the descendants of
African-American slaves. For Darity and Myers, the case for reparations is
not merely a matter of correcting a past injustice. As they put it, "The
effects of historic deprivations are cumulative" (p. 151).

The cumulative deprivation that would be offset by reparations is the
maldistribution of wealth between blacks and whites. Wealth is much less
equitably distributed than income, and Darity and Myers cite recent
studies finding that racial wealth differences are truly historical in
origin, arising from differences in the size of inheritances rather than
differences in savings rates or asset returns.

But would the wealth redistribution achieved through a one-time payment of
reparations bring about the hoped-for transformation of African-American
economic prospects? Those of us who are of the Rawlsian persuasion can
agree with the authors that a considerable reduction in wealth inequality
may be a necessary condition for fair equality of opportunity, but is it
sufficient? Darity and Myers think it can be, if coupled with vigorous
enforcement of anti-discrimination law and a concerted movement among
African-Americans to promote entrepreneurship and economic independence,
especially among the poorest. But experience provides us with very little
evidence to assess this claim one way or the other.

Disillusioned with the disappointing results and declining political
viability of race-based affirmative action, Darity and Myers in the end
argue for the transfer of literally trillions of dollars from whites to
blacks. The irony and air of unreality in this proposal are not lost on
the authors, who admit that it would be "outrageous and unrealistic" to
the vast majority of Americans. But what if they happen to be right that
reparations offer the best chance for eliminating the persistent disparity
between the races once and for all? One can hope that if the authors write
another book, they will steer their considerable intellectual talents away
from inconclusive exercises in crunching the same old earnings data, and
toward a serious and thorough defense of the justice and effectiveness of
their immodest proposal for reparations.

    Copyright (c) 2000 by EH.Net and H-Net, all rights reserved. This work
    may be copied for non-profit educational use if proper credit is given
    to the author and the list. For other permission, please contact
    review.editor@xxxxxxx (Robert Whaples, Book Review Editor, EH.Net.
    Telephone: 910-758-4916. Fax: 910-758-6028.)


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/