The Divided Society and the Democratic Ideal: Persistent Racial Inequality in the USRacial Inequality in the US

Glenn C. LouryGlenn C. Loury

Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences Brown UniversitySciences, Brown University

Thomas C. Schelling Lecture

School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, March 2014

Outline of this PresentationOutline of this Presentation

• Introduction: Remembering Tom at KSG in 1980s!

• Lecture Motivation: Why discuss ‘Race’ in the US? Is it still relevant to talk in those terms?US? Is it still relevant to talk in those terms?

• Persistent Racial Inequality: Some Facts

A P d E l ti S i l S ti• A Proposed Explanation: Social Segregation

• Some Political Considerations

• The Tempting But Ultimately False Analogy:

“President Obama is No (Martin Luther) King”es de t Oba a s o ( a t ut e ) g

What Is Meant by “Schellingesque”• Broad interests; playfulness of mind; mastery of strategic• Broad interests; playfulness of mind; mastery of strategic analysis; elegant writing; always linking theory with policy.

• Teaching “Public Policy in Divided Societies” with Tom, I encountered writers like: Amartya Sen; Albert Hirschman; Erving Goffman; Leo Strauss; Kenneth Arrow; Robert Merton (Sr.); Howard Raiffa; Mancur Olson; Michael Spence; Harold Isaacs; Jon Elster; Thomas Pettigrew; Michael Walzer; Gunnar Myrdal; Thomas Kuhn … (I got an education!)

• Among the topics our students investigated were: the RomaAmong the topics our students investigated were: the Roma in Europe; the indigenous in Central America; untouchabililtyin India; slave maroon communities in the Caribbean; skin color caste in cities of New Orleans and Charleston; signcolor caste in cities of New Orleans and Charleston; sign language vs. lip‐reading among the deaf; name and accent changes to disguise ethnic/regional origins; collective punishment, pride, shame and reputation; racial profiling;punishment, pride, shame and reputation; racial profiling; stigma; sexual divisions of labor at home and in the workplace; endogamy and assortative mating …

• Among the conceptual puzzles which were g p pexplored in lectures from that course were the workings of: rumors; seduction; riots; “passing for h ” l bl d b l lwhite”; anonymity; plausible deniability; signaling; 

strategic imprecision; group think; code words and dog whistle politics; discursive taboos and nakeddog‐whistle politics; discursive taboos and naked emperors; knowledge of another’s state of knowledge; behavior in public; difference betweenknowledge; behavior in public; difference between promises, threats and bluffs.

• In short I incurred an enormous intellectual debtIn short, I incurred an enormous intellectual debt to Tom in those years, one which I shall never be able adequately to discharge …q y g

“Another Astonishing Sixty Years?”• May of this year will mark sixtieth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s fabled Brown decision.R k i i h h ll d “A i Dil ” f• Reckoning with the so‐called “American Dilemma” of race was the biggest domestic challenge facing post‐WWII AmericaWWII America.

• Large Scale of non‐European immigration since 1964 has transformed social/political landscape onhas transformed social/political landscape on questions of racial inequality.

• So, how are we doing? Problem solved?g• I wish to suggest that, while “enormous progress has been made,” we have NOT solved this problem and, moreover, are now in danger of losing our way.

Let’s Start with the First-Order Social Facts about RacialLet s Start with the First Order Social Facts about Racial Inequality in America Today:

(1) African American Social Disadvantage Is a Stubbornly Persistent Reality of 21st Century American Society

(2) Convergence to parity is nowhere in sight (I’ll show).

(3) Dr. King’s ‘Dream’ of Equality Has Yet To Be Realized

(4) But That’s OK Because ‘We Got Us a Black President’?

Here Is a Statistical Overview ofHere Is a Statistical Overview of Persistent Racial Inequality in the US

Ed cational AttainmentEducational Attainment

Persistently Lower Rates of CollegePersistently Lower Rates of College Graduation and Enduring Racial 

Achievement GapAchievement Gap

Percent of Native‐Born, Non‐Hispanic Men and Women Aged 25 to 34 Reporting a Four‐Year College Education

50%

30%35%40%45%50%

White Men

10%15%20%25%

Black Men

0%5%

1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

Black Men

30%35%40%45%50%

White Women

10%15%20%25%30%

Black Women

0%5%

1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

Employment, Earnings and Family incomes

Lower Earnings and Employment for Men, Hugely Disparate Resources for Raising Families and Persistent RacialRaising Families and Persistent Racial 

Poverty Rate Gap

Percent of Native‐Born, Non‐Hispanic Men and  WomenAged 25 to 59 Employed; 1968 to 2007

80%

90%

100%

White Men

50%

60%

70%

Black Men

30%

40%

1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

80%

90%

100%

White Women

50%

60%

70%

Black Women

Black Women

30%

40%

1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

White Women

Median Wage and Salary Earnings for Native‐Born Non‐Hispanics Reporting Earnings

$60 000

$50 000

$55,000

$60,000

$40 000

$45,000

$50,000

White Men

$30 000

$35,000

$40,000

Black Men

$25,000

$30,000

White Women

$15,000

$20,000 Black Women

$10,0001968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

Median Income of Households Headed by Native‐Born Non‐Hispanics(shown in constant 2007 Dollars)

$55,000

$60,000

Whit

$45,000

$50,000Whites

$35,000

$40,000

$20 000

$25,000

$30,000

Blacks

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$10,0001968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

Percent of Native‐Born Non‐Hispanics Below the Poverty Line; 1968 to 2007

35%

40%

ImpoverishedBlacks

25%

30%

10%

15%

20%

0%

5%

10%

Impoverished Whites

1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

Percent of Native‐Born Non‐Hispanic Children Under Age 18 Below the Poverty Line; 1968 to 2007

60%

ImpoverishedBlack Children

40%

50% Black Children

20%

30%

0%

10%Impoverished White Children

0%1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

One Other Indicator Of AfricanOne Other Indicator Of African American’s subordinate social status:

A Huge Racial Assets Gap 

HOME OWNERSHIP

Percent of Native‐Born Non‐Hispanic Households Owning their Residence

90%

100%

70%

80%White Owners

50%

60%

20%

30%

40% Black Owners

20%

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Then There’s The IncarcerationThen There s The Incarceration Explosion – Both Reflecting and Locking‐in Racial Inequality

Let’s Look at the Numbers On US Imprisonment Trends 1970 2010:Imprisonment Trends ‐‐ 1970‐2010:

(1) Dwarfs other Countries in the West

(2) Unprecedented in US History

(3) Wildly Disparate by Race and Class( ) y p y

(4) A Key Feature of US Social Policy(4) A Key Feature of US Social Policy

Numbers Incarcerated in US by Race: 1980‐2008

The Prison Intersects with Families and Communities.Note Incarceration’s Huge Impact of Black Children.

Increased Imprisonment for Drug Offenses Leading Factor in the Growth of  US Incarceration since 1980

Increased Imprisonment for Drug Offenses Leading Factor in the Growth of  US Incarceration since 1980

Yet, Marijuana has been the target of much anti‐drug policing. Why?

There Has Been a Massive Racial Disparity in the Incidence of Anti‐Drugs Law Enforcement (relative to usage rates)g g

Question: What does this reveal aboutQuestion: What does this reveal about the character of American democracy?

Institutions of Punishment Are PrimaryInstitutions of Punishment Are Primary Venue for Government’s Engagement 

h f hwith African American Men in the US

Prisons more prominent than schools, i ili i l iunions, military or social agencies

What about thisWhat about this counter‐argument?g

Racial differences in punishment are not “ ”really “inequality” since people can always 

choose not to “do the crime,” in which case they needn’t “do the time ”they needn’t “do the time.”

Data Suggest that Poverty Is a “Root Cause” ofData Suggest that Poverty Is a  Root Cause  of Participation in Crime in the US

Source: Heller, Jacob and Ludwig, “Family Income, Neighborhood Poverty and Crime,” Chp.Source: Heller, Jacob and Ludwig,  Family Income, Neighborhood Poverty and Crime,  Chp. 9 in Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs, Univ. Chicago Press 2011

Source: Heller, Jacob and Ludwig, “Family Income, Neighborhood Poverty and Crime,” Chp.Source: Heller, Jacob and Ludwig,  Family Income, Neighborhood Poverty and Crime,  Chp. 9 in Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs, Univ. Chicago Press 2011

1975‐2002

Source: Seth Sanders, “Crime and the Family: Lessons from Teenage Childbearing,” Chp. 12 in Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs, Univ. Chicago Press 2011

Yet, During the 1990s US Social Policy Shifted toward Punishment and Away from Poverty Reduction.

Consider Change in Numbers Incarcerated and Receiving Cash Aid:1990‐Consider Change in Numbers Incarcerated and Receiving Cash Aid:1990‐2000

.5to

199

00

tion

Rel

ativ

e P

olic

y P

opu

lat

Source: Schram and Soss, 2005

-.5

P

1990 1995 2000y eary ear

Receiv ing Cash Assistance Incarcerated

My own work over four has explored an alternative social‐analytic framework:

Persistent Racial Inequality in the US not due to “Black Culture” but to Social and Geographic Segregation by Race and Class?g p g g y

I have been making this argument for nearly 40 years. Thus, here isa quote from Glenn Loury’s 1976 (!) Ph.D. dissertation (MIT Economics)

Persistent Racial Inequality in US Due to Social and Geographic 

Segregation by Race?Segregation by Race?

Consider Some Evidence 

R id ti l S ti i M h tt I RResidential Segregation in Manhattan: Income vs. Race

Actual Segregation

Income OnlyIncome‐Only SegregationSource: Sethi and Somanathan

JPE, 2004 (working paper version)

“Neighborhood Racial Tipping” in Chicago (from Card, Mas and Rothstein, QJE, 2008)(Whites flee neighborhoods where blacks more than 10% of population)

(First and Second‐Generation Non‐Whites Avoid Living Near Blacks)

(L A l i th 1990 )(Los Angeles in the 1990s)

Neighborhood Racial Composition fPreferences

(This diagram was generated via the so called “Spring Algorithm”)(Note the extent of racial in‐group “bias” in  the so‐called  Spring Algorithm )

patterns of social affiliations for this district!)Source: “Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America.” American Journal of Sociology 107(3) 679:716;Moody, James.

(Evidence that neighborhoods where blacks live are perceived to be more disorderly than is warranted by objective characteristics.)

Segregation and Social Outcomes

Here Are Several Interesting Empirical Studies:1 Economists Byron Lutz and Jens Ludwig’s NBER1. Economists Byron Lutz and Jens Ludwig’s NBER 

study links school desegregation to violent crime2. Sociologists Sampson and Loefler’s Study of ‘Place,2. Sociologists Sampson and Loefler s Study of  Place, 

Crime and Incarceration,’ Chicago: 1990‐20053. Economists Charles, Hurst and Roussanov’s Study 

of Conspicuous Consumption and Race (QJE 2009)4. Trends in Race‐Segregation of US Schools (Orfield)5 Gl d C l QJE 1996 ( ff f h )5. Glaeser and Cutler, QJE, 1996 (effect of ghettos)6. Card, Mas and Rothstein, QJE, 2008 (tipping)

Economic Theories of PersistentEconomic Theories of Persistent Racial Inequality

Three Conceptual Models That May HelpThree Conceptual Models That May Help To Explain Persistent Racial Inequality

(Examples motivated by Yale sociologist Elijah ( p y g jAnderson’s ethnographic study of Philadelphia, as reported in his 1999 book, Code of the Streets)p , f )

Three Conceptual Models

1) “Tipping” and Multiple Equilibrium

Three Conceptual Models

1)  Tipping  and Multiple Equilibrium

2) A Reputation Game and “Rational Aggression” 

3) Segregation, Behavioral Spillovers and Persistent g g pSocial Inequality 

1) Schelling’s “Tipping” Phenomenon) g pp g

Multiple Equilibria: One Reason Why It Is Difficult to Distinguish “Culture” from “Structure” Whento Distinguish Culture  from  Structure  When There Is Significant Social Segregation by Race

Fraction of population 

X(t+1) 

p pelecting to be carry a gun at date  t+1 45⁰ line

f(x):B f(x) = fraction of population 

with a “gun carry threshold” no greater than  x. 

f(x):W 

X(t)X(t) X(0)X(0) X^ Fraction of population 

believed to be carrying a gun at date  t

Multiple Equilibrium, “Tipping” Effects and Dynamic Social Decisions within Some Community about Weapons Possession

(2) “Campaigning for Respect”( ) p g g p

A Little Bit of Game Theory to Help Explain Why It May Be Rational to Acquire a Reputation forIt May Be Rational to Acquire a Reputation for 

Violence

(3) How Segregation Can Cause Racial Inequality to PersistInequality to Persist

A Simple Model with Social Interactions andA Simple Model with Social Interactions and Behavioral Spillovers to Illustrate How Segregation Can Lead to Persistent Racial Inequality WhenThereCan Lead to Persistent Racial Inequality WhenThere

Are No Real Differences of “Culture”

(based on Bowles, Loury, Sethi, JEEA, 2013)

A Dynamic Model of Persistent Group Inequality

• Society  extends over an indefinite number of periods, consisting of people belonging to social groups A or B. Think of B’s as being di d d P l li f i d i ldisadvantaged. People live for two periods; generations overlap.

• Young people adopt either “decent” or “street” orientations. The orientation adopted depends on the earnings of the old people by whom a young person is socially influenced (perhaps because old people earn higher wages if they had been “decent” when young )people earn higher wages if they had been  decent  when young.)

• Each young person has ties to a large number of older people, and th f ti f “ t ” ti d d d f tithe fraction of “out‐group” ties depends on degree of segregation.

• A demographic parameter βЄ(0,1) denotes the relative number of group B agents in each generation. (So if β <1/2 then disadvantaged are a minority of the overall population, etc.)

• A segregation parameter  ηЄ(0,1) denotes the probability that a young person’s social tie is to some old person drawn at random from within his same social group And 1‐ η is the chance a tie is drawn atwithin his same social group. And 1‐ η is the chance a tie is drawn at random from overall old population. (η=1 implies total segregation.)

h l f ’ l fl d b• The quality of a young person’s social influences is represented by the symbol  σЄ(0,1), which denotes the share of “decent” older people among a young person’s social influences.g y g p

• Key Behavioral Assumption: There exist a quality threshold σ*Є(0,1) such that a young person adopts the “decent” orientation if and only ifsuch that a young person adopts the  decent  orientation if and only if the quality of his social influences, σ, exceeds this threshold.

H d h “d ” fli l i i hi• How does the “decent vs. street” conflict evolve over time in this model, given demographic/segregation parameters σ and η? Note that “everybody decent” and “everybody street” are both stable behavioral configurations in this society. More interesting is that “all A’s decent, all B’s street” is also stable behavioral configuration if η is big enough!

old young

youngold youngold

Thus once adopted a behavioral configuration in this societyThus, once adopted, a behavioral configuration in this society where all A’s adopt a “decent” orientation and all B’s adopt a “street” orientation would tend to persist across the generations whenever  α₁ > σ* > α₀

(A’s lose from moreintegration when β large)

Conclusions from B‐L‐S Model of Social Interactions:

This conceptual exercise suggests that:

SOME POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONSSOME  POLITICAL  CONSIDERATIONS

(LIMITS OF ETHNIC POLITICS?)

Race, Bias and American PoliticsVesla Weaver’s Argument

(from PhD Thesis Harvard Univ 2006)(from PhD Thesis, Harvard Univ. 2006)

Changed        Focusing       Elite Issue            Institutions PolicyNorms Events Goals      Formation Outcomes

Collapse of segregation Riots

Problem Definition:

Synthesis of

Punitive Legislation

New Norm of

CrimeSynthesis of Racial Discord & Crime

Norm of Racial Equality

Losers of Civil Rights seeking to

Conservative Control of Key 

Strategic Pursuit

seeking to preserve power

Committees

IssueIssue Capture

Erosion of Civil Rights Agenda

Finally, what Has Rise of Obama To Do with Problem? My radical answer: Next to Nothing (not his fault):My radical answer: Next to Nothing (not his fault):

(1) O fi t bl k P id t d t k di tl(1) Our first black President dare not speak directlyof racial inequality and racial subordination.(2) H ( i h l ) f l i l i i i h f(2) He (rightly) fears losing legitimacy in the eyes of 

the voting majority were he to do so. (racial stigma) (3) I i ll h l l f Hi i(3) Ironically, he appeals openly for Hispanic or gay 

votes, but cannot (and need not) be seen to be trying h l bl k h Th ’ll f hi !to help blacks, as such. They’ll vote for him anyway!(4) Ironically, blacks’ interests may get less political 

i d Ob h h did d Cliattention under Obama than they did under Clinton

(5) But, I wish to argue that the current situation is actually much worse than that! y

(6) It is not only that black officials atop the US government are unable/unwilling to address the g / gleadership challenges posed by persistent African‐American subordination in the society.

(7) What is worse is that the ascendancy of blacks to such high office has fostered a false narrative of gracial equality undercutting possibilities for change.

(8) Their rise also threatens to neutralize a prophetic ( ) p psocial critique of US politics and policy – both domestic and foreign ‐‐ that is naturally rooted in the heroic  legacy of the black freedom struggle!

A Simplistic and False Narrative Has Emerged E i h P li i l P f Th MEquating the Political Programs of These Men

One Was a “Drum Major for Justice”

The Other Is “Commander‐in‐Chief”(Those are rather different jobs no?)(Those are rather different jobs, no?)

A Fist Bump Across the Generations!p

(Note: The ‘fist bump’ is a popular greeting among young African‐Americans)

(My Personal Favorite)(My Personal Favorite)

The “Dream” Analogy:gy

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self‐evident: that all men are created eq al " I ha e a dream that one da on the red hills ofequal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a tableslave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.” (MLK, Washington, DC, 1963)

King Had a “Dream” that, with Ob ’ Ri H N C T ?Obama’s Rise, Has Now Comes True?

Why not equate these movements? Both men are black, after all. 

Really??   Could It Be Just That Simple?   I Seriously Doubt That!!

‘Brother’ Jesse Jackson – Weeping with Joy on Election Day 2008with Joy on Election Day, 2008

‘Brother’ Cornel West – Scolding, circa 2011

(There has always been push‐back(There has always been push back against the ‘dream’ analogy.)

(Source: The Washington Post)

Not Everyone Is Pleased on the Left:

END OF RANT!!

THANK YOU VERYTHANK YOU VERY MUCH!!MUCH!!

((And, in case you’re wondering, yes of course, I voted for Obama ‐‐ Twice!!)