albert szymanski - racial discrimination and white gain

Racial Discrimination and White GainAuthor(s): Albert SzymanskiSource: American Sociological Review, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Jun., 1976), pp. 403-414Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094250 .

Accessed: 26/11/2013 15:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.115.76.13 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:03:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094250?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND WHITE GAIN 403

Warren, Bruce L. 1966 "A multiple variable approach to the

assortative mating phenomenon." Eu- genics Quarterly 13:285-90.

Warren, Ronald L. 1963 The Community in America. Chicago:

Rand McNally.

Whyte, William Foote 1943 Street Corner Society. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press.

Young, Michael and Peter Willmott 1957 Family and Kinship in East London.

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND WHITE GAIN

ALBERT SZYMANSKI University of Oregon

American Sociological Review 1976, Vol. 41 (June): 403-414

The question of whether or not whites gain economically from economic discrimination against third world people is examined with evidence from the 1970 U.S. census. The impact of racial discrimination is measured by the percentage of the population of third world origin in each state and by the ratio of black to white male earnings for those who work full time. White gain is measured by the level of white male earnings in each state and the Gini coefficient of earnings inequality among white males. If whites gain economically from racism, we would expect to find that the greater the percentage of the population of a state that is third world and the lower the ratio of black/white earnings then the higher the level of white earnings and the less the inequality in white earnings. The basic relationships were examined controlling for percentage of the population that is urban, percentage of the economically active population in manufacturing, level of personal income, region and percentage of the population that is third world. It is found that whites do not gain from economic discrimination; on the contrary, white working people actually lose economically from such discrimination. It is argued that racism is a divisive force which undermines the economic and political strength of working people and acts to worsen the economic position of white workers in the most racist areas. In support of this interpretation, data on the strength of unions is examined.

There have been a number of studies on the question of whether or not white working people actually gain economically from economic discrimination against blacks and other national minorities in the United States. The most influential of these include: Becker (1971), Glenn (1963; 1966), Thurow (1969) and Reich (1971).1 All but the last of these essentially argue

I Some other relevant studies include Blalock (1957), Cutright (1965), Dollard (1937:ch. 6) and Krueger (1963). The weight of all of these studies is the conclusion that white workers benefit from economic discrimination against blacks. On the other hand, a number of descriptive studies of American strikes, union organizing and labor struggles suggest the opposite, i.e., that racism is in fact used to keep whites as well as blacks impoverished. See for example: Brody (1960), Bracey et al. (1971) and Spero and Harris (1968). Others who make theoretical arguments that white workers gain from racial discrimination include Baron (1971) and Blauner (1972).

that the white working class benefits from economic discrimination and therefore has a stake in its persistence. Reich, on the other hand, working within the Marxist paradigm, attempts to demonstrate that, on the contrary, the white working class suffers from economic discrimination against blacks and consequently has an interest in ending that discrimination.

Becker (1971) has stated what is perhaps the most widely accepted theory of discrimination among contemporary academic economists. He argues that discrimination is a matter of personal taste on the part of employers who must forego a part of their potential income in order to realize their desire to avoid associating with blacks. Because white employers resist hiring blacks, even when doing so would produce greater profits for them, they are net losers from economic discrimination. On the other hand, white workers who get the jobs the white employers irrationally (from the



404 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

point of view of profit maximization) re- fuse to give to blacks are net beneficiaries of discrimination. Implicit in the Becker formulation is that it is the attitudes of the employers that are the cause of discrimination (and hence that attitudes must change before discrimination can be eliminated) and that white workers have a rational stake in perpetuating discrimination (and hence that'they will resist efforts to eliminate it).

Thurow (1969) explicitly rejects Becker's formulation. He argues instead that employers actually prefer to hire blacks, as long as they can be exploited to increase profit. He thus maintains that not only white workers, but also white employers, benefit economically from discrimination. Disagreeing with Becker, that it is primar- ily attitudes that are the cause of discrimination, Thurow argues that it is the monopoly power of white employers that is the most important determinant. Without such power, he argues, racial prejudice would have much less impact on black income. Unlike Becker (whose work is basically theoretical) Thurow brings substantial evidence, consistent with his analysis, to bear on his argument. His estimate that whites gain approximately $15 billion a year from discrimination against blacks, however, suffers from his failure to take into account the secondary effects of discrimination such as those suggested by Glenn and Reich (see below). The implica- tion of Thurow's analysis is that discrimination will be fairly hard to uproot since all segments of the white community gain from its practice.

Glenn (1963; 1966) uses data from the 1950 and 1960 censuses to attempt to demonstrate his thesis that whites in general benefit economically from discrimination against blacks. He first lays out various hypothetical reasons why whites might gain or lose from economic discrimination. Along with Thurow, he mentions the direct effect of blacks taking the low paying and unpleasant jobs, thereby allowing whites to escape such work and rise to fill the better paying and more satisfying jobs. He then discusses some of the possible indirect effects of racial discrimination that hypo- thetically might more than negate the gain

in the first instance from economic discrimination. He mentions the possibility that low paid black labor might retard mechanization and prevent the most effi- cient utilization of labor, and thereby reduce the productivity and growth of the entire economy, resulting in lower income for whites than would be the case if blacks did not receive low pay. He also mentions the possible draining effect on white income of taxes for welfare payments and law enforcement expenses caused by discrimination against blacks. He further suggests that the concentration of blacks in the worst jobs need not necessarily push whites up. It might result merely in increasing the proportion of low paying jobs or increasing the unemployment rate among whites. He also discusses the possibility that if blacks didn't do the low paying jobs, perhaps they would be done by machine.

Going on to examine the empirical evidence, Glenn correlates the percentage of the population of SMSAs (Standard Metro- politan Statistical Areas) that are black with a number of indicators, the most important of which are the proportion of white families making more than $10,000 a year and his index of occupation status (which is used as a measure of the overrepresentation of whites in the better jobs). Glenn finds that the higher the proportion of blacks in an SMSA, the greater the overrepresentation of whites in the better paying jobs. However, in spite of his ex- pectations, he could not find a relationship between the proportion of blacks and the measure of white income. Nevertheless, he concludes that all things considered, whites in general benefit economically from economic discrimination against blacks and that "Negro-white antagonism in the United States is, and will long remain, partly a matter of realistic conflict. Negroes cannot advance without the loss of traditional white benefits, and it is unlikely that most of the whites who benefit from the inferior status of the Negroes will willingly allow Negro advancement" (Glenn, 1966:178).

Reich (1971) after developing an argument within the Marxist theoretical frame- work uses data from the 1960 census to demonstrate that white workers suffer rather than benefit economically from eco-




nomic discrimination against blacks. Reich discusses some indirect effects of economic discrimination that Glenn did not mention. He maintains that these factors have a considerably greater effect in reducing the economic position of whites than the effect of whites getting higher paying jobs than blacks improves the white situation. Reich argues that the wages of white workers are considerably reduced by racial antagonisms, in good part because union growth and labor militancy are inhibited. Em- ployers evoke the fear of cheaper unem- ployed, or underemployed black labor taking away white jobs to keep wages down and unions weak or absent. On the shop floor, the antagonisms between white and black workers, or the fear of the introduc- tion of black workers, deflect the workers' concerns from a defense of their class position. In general, racial antagonisms cause white and black workers to fight each other to the mutual detriment of both. The somewhat better jobs and wages of white workers are not enough to make up for what they lose because of the lack of solidarity with black workers. Reich also suggests that the racial antagonisms, which are the corollary of racial discrimination, result in poor public services and especially in poor public education, which adversely affect blacks and whites alike. Racial antagonism prevents the interracial unity necessary to successfully demand quality education. Whites get some satisfaction in seeing that no matter how poor white schools might be, they look good compared to black schools.

Reich (1971) correlates the ratio of black/white median family income with the Gini index of income inequality for white family income. For the 48 biggest SMSAs in 1960, he found a regression coefficient of -.47 between these two variables (Reich, 1971:111). Bowels (Reich, 1971:111), doing a similar correlation for the 50 states, found a -.58 correlation. These results mean that the less economic discrimination against blacks, the less inequality among whites. Reich maintains that these results are incompatible with the models of Becker and Thurow and indicate that a concentration of blacks in the poorer paying jobs does not result in pushing whites into better

paying jobs. To the contrary, the greater income inequality among whites, in the presence of greater discrimination against blacks, indicates that working class whites are worse off where discrimination is the greatest.

This paper tests the basic propositions of Becker, Glenn, Thurow and Reich using a somewhat more comprehensive set of measures than any one of the previous tests has. More important, it investigates the mechanisms by which discrimination affects white gain.

Hypotheses and Design Certain inferences can be made from the

theories presented by Thurow, Becker and Glenn concerning both the distribution of white earnings within a given geographical area and the relative level of white earnings among different geographical areas. Quite different inferences follow from the model layed out by Reich. If Thurow, Becker and Glenn are right in arguing that economic discrimination against third world people benefits white workers, because the process of being forced into the lowest paying jobs pushes whites into the better jobs, we would expect to find (I) that whites in those areas where economic discrimination against third world people is the most significant would, other things being equal, have higher income than in those areas where economic discrimination against third world people is the least significant; and (2) that the earnings inequality. among whites would be greatest where economic discrimination against third world people is least significant and least where economic discrimination against third world people is the most significant.2 We expect (1) because given a set earnings distribution, if third world people disproportionately take the lowest paying jobs, then it logically follows that whites will take what is left over, namely the higher paying jobs. We expect (2) because given a set earnings distribution, if third world people are disproportionately distributed among the lower

2Third world people include blacks, persons of Spanish origin, Asians and American Indians. The term "whites" is used to refer to everyone else. Thus, although most persons of Spanish origin are actually white they are excluded from the category of "whites" used in this paper.




paying jobs then whites will be disproportionately distributed among the better jobs and thus have a "tighter" income distribution among them. It should be noted that the mere existence of relative earnings equality among whites is not a sure indicator that whites are benefiting from economic discrimination against third world people, since such a distribution could obviously be caused by whites bunching up at the lower or the middle end of the earnings scale as well as at the top. But if whites did not bunch up at all, this would be proof that whites did not benefit economically; i.e., lesser earnings inequality among whites is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for demonstrating the Becker-Thurow-Glenn thesis that white workers gain from racial discrimination. A sufficient proof of the thesis of white gain would also have to show that the median white earnings are higher in those areas where the earnings inequality among whites is less.

If the Reich thesis (that white workers lose economically from racial discrimination against third world people) is correct, we would expect a different pattern. We would expect (1) that the median white earnings are highest in those areas where economic discrimination against third world people was the least significant and (2) that earnings inequality among whites was greatest where economic discrimination against third world people was the most intense. We would expect (1) because the more significant the discrimination, the more divisive the racial issue is and hence the greater opportunity employers have to make use of it to keep wages (white as well as third world) down. We would expect (2) because the presence of racial divisive- ness acts to weaken unions and other manifestations of class action which would otherwise act to promote equality among white workers (by demanding that the condition of the poor be brought up relatively rapidly compared to the most privi- leged). More important, the Gini index differentiates whites by class and is thus able to tell us if the poorer working-class whites lose or gain relative to the better paid skilled workers, professionals, managers, owners, etc. An increase in the Gini

index indicates that the poorer working class is worse off relative to the better paid, while a decrease in the Gini index indicates the opposite. The Gini index thus allows us to make judgments on the validity of Becker's and Reich's claims which differ- entiate between the gain of white workers and the gain of all whites.

In order to test the relationship between economic discrimination and white economic gain, I use the indicators described below. In all cases, data is from the 1970 U.S. Census of Population. All income data refers to 1969. It is necessary to measure both the intensity and the potential impact of economic discrimination. As the indicator of the intensity of racism, the ratio of third world to white median earnings (for those who work year-around and full- time) was sought. This indicator does not measure the so-called "pure economic discrimination" against third world people who are equal in every way, except in their national background, to whites (i.e., have the same education, skill level, age, job experiences, etc.); but it measures the all- around economic discrimination that takes all aspects of economic discrimination, direct and indirect, past and present, into account, since all these factors are closely interconnected and only the aggregate fully describes the role of economic discrimination and its impact on the rest of the economy including the wages of white workers. Of course, the ratio of third world earnings to white earnings does not directly measure other aspects of racial oppression such as housing, on-the-job humiliations, education, leisure time discrimination and the ever- present degradation in interpersonal relationships. But discrimination in wages is both a very important aspect of the whole gestalt of discrimination and perhaps a particularly important key to all other aspects of all-around racism. Unfortunately, data for the ratio of third world to white earnings is not readily available. Therefore, the ratio of black to white earnings for those who worked full-time the year-around in 1969 is used to approximate it. Little distortion should be expected here because, on the one hand, the blacks are the biggest single third world group in the U.S. (there are more blacks in the U.S. than all other




third world people put together), and on the other, because patterns observable among blacks in most cases should be expected to reflect the general treatment of third world people. This indicator is similar to the one used by Reich (1971) in his study of white gain.

It is necessary to measure more than just the intensity of racial discrimination, however, if we are concerned with measur- ing the impact of discrimination on white workers. No matter how intense discrimination against third world workers might be, if they are, say, only one percent of the population of an area, it would be very difficult for that discrimination to have much effect one way or the other on the 99% of the people that are white. On the other hand, if one-half of the population of an area is third world, then even slight discrimination against third world people could be expected to have an impact on white workers' wages. As a measure of the potential impact of racial discrimination then, I use the percentage of the population of an area that is third world, i.e., black, of Spanish origin, American Indian and Asian. This data is available. This measure is analogous to that used by Glenn (1966) in his study of white income gain. The research thus has the advantage of employ- ing measures similar (but not identical to) those used in two of the most sophisticated previous studies of white gain.

One of the two actual measures employed encompasses not just blacks, the major national minority in the U.S., but all the third world minorities. This is important because all these groups perform similar economic roles in the U.S. economy. All specialize in the same types of menial, low paying "dirty work" occupations (Falter- mayer, 1974; Oppenheimer, 1974). Since blacks and other "people of color" are functional substitutes for one another in this economic role, any complete test of the thesis that white workers gain from economic discrimination should include not just economic discrimination against blacks, which is most significant in those areas where blacks are the largest proportion of third world people (especially in the South and the mid-West), but also against Latin peoples (which is most significant in the

Western states and New York) as well as against other third world people.

As measures of the effect of economic discrimination on white workers, i.e., "white gain," I use median white male earnings for full-time, year-around workers and the Gini index of white male earnings inequality for full-time year-around workers.3 In these measures only full-time, year-around workers are used in order to eliminate the effect of different levels of employment, which may or may not be caused by factors related to racial discrimination.

Here and in the ratio of black to white earnings I used data for males only in order to separate out the effect of sexism and the complex patterns of interrelation between racial and sexual discrimination from the effect of racism. I use data for indi- vidual earnings, rather than family earnings, in order to focus on point of production discrimination and to eliminate the effect of differences in female labor force par- ticipation rates, different proportions of families headed by women, etc. I focus on point of production discrimination, rather than on the overall economic situation of white families, since this seems to be the essence of what the various theories of white gain or loss are getting at in their explanatory schema.

Glenn's study of 1960 census data em- ploys a measure analogous to median white male earnings (the percentage of white families with income over $10,000) while Reich's study on the same census data relies instead on the Gini index of white family incomes. Unlike them, I use data on earnings rather than on income (which differ only slightly for most of the population) in order to get to the heart of what is implied in the theories of the effect of economic discrimination, i.e., that it is wage and salary discrimination against individuals and wage and salary gain or loss for individuals that are alleged to be causes and effects.

As the units of analysis, I use the 50 states of the United States. Frequently, in

3The Gini index is the standard measure of inequality. It varies from "O" in the case of complete equality to "1" in the case of complete inequality. For a full discussion, see Miller, 1966.




studies on income distribution, the SMSAs (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas) are used instead of the states. Each of these types of units has its advantages. The SMSAs have the advantage, generally, of being common labor markets, which is not the case with the larger units of states, as well as being more economically homo- geneous and compact than the states. The states, on the other hand, have the advantage of encompassing rural as well as urban economic activities and having more data published which refers to them. In actuality both units are probably almost equally valid in a test such as this. Previous studies using both states and the SMSAs have shown almost identical findings (Reich, 1971: 111 ). We chose the states, rather than the SMSAs, because (1) to choose SMSAs would have disproportionately excluded people of Mexican origin in Cali- fornia and the South West, Indians through- out the Western states and blacks in certain Southern areas and (2) because the intermediate variable in the model of the Marxist explanatory schema-percentage of the non-agricultural labor force in labor unions-is available only for the states, not for the SMSAs. I welcome attempted replications using the SMSAs.

The Pearsonian r correlation coefficients are computed for the relationships between each of the two indicators of economic discrimination and each of the two measures of white gain. The use of linear regression techniques is validated by the evidence of scatter diagrams which indicate that the distribution of the data is not curvilinear and that there exist no cases so extreme as to substantially distort the results. Tests of statistical significance are not necessary since the universe of the 50 states, not a sample, is employed. The results are thus statistically (but not necessarily sociolog- ically) significant at any level.

Once the basic regression coefficients are computed, the relationship between economic discrimination and white gain is calculated controlling for those factors which in previous studies of income distribution have been shown to have a substantial impact: region, personal income per capita, occupational and industrial composition, degree of urbanization and

percentage of the population that is third world (this last, only where relevant). (See Reich, 1971:111.) These factors are controlled for both individually and simultaneously in order to determine whether or not the zero-order correlations are in fact reflecting a real, rather than a spurious relationship between the variables.

Because one of the four tests involves correlating a ratio (black to white male median earnings) with the denominator of the ratio (white male median earnings), objections could be raised about the so- called "ratio-correlation problem" (see Fuguitt and Lieberson, 1974). When there is a zero correlation between "a" and "b," there is nevertheless a negative correlation between "b" and "a/b." Another way of saying this is that if the sets of "a's" and "b's" are random numbers, there will be a negative relation between "b" and "a/b." Because of this mathematical phenomenon, there could be a danger of mistakenly judging either that there is a negative relationship between two unrelated variables or no relationship between two positively related variables.

A number of authors have suggested (Kuh and Meyer, 1955; Rangarajan and Chatterjee, 1969) that this problem is not particularly important in cases like the one examined in this study since there is no a priori conceptual relation between "a/b" and "b." But to be sure the results observed are not artifacts of such a spurious effect, I also correlated median black male earnings with median white male earnings controlling for personal income per capita (these concepts contain no common terms). If the correlation obtained is as strong as that observed between the ratio of black to white median earnings and white median earnings, then it would seem that this later correlation is not spurious. Also if it is found that the correlation obtained is positive, rather than negative, this will indicate that the results cannot possibly be spurious, since the alleged ratio correlation effect either produces a negative correlation where in fact there is none or an apparent lack of a correlation when there is in fact a positive correlation.

After the basic relationships are examined, the Marxist model of the causative




links between economic discrimination and white gain is examined.

The Results The correlation between white male

median earnings and the ratio of black male to white male earnings is +.27, a small but positive relationship indicating that the higher black earnings relative to white, the higher white earnings relative to other whites (see Table 1). This relationship is consistently upheld when percentage of the population that is third world, percentage urban, personal income per capita and percentage of the labor force in manufacturing is controlled for. It is weakened, but still positive, when region is controlled for. When only those states with at least 12% of their population third world are examined (i.e., those states where economic discrimination against third world people is able to have a significant economic effect on white earnings), the original relationships are strengthened. In these states the correlation coefficient is +.46, and this stronger relationship is maintained with every control. Again, however, the relation-

ship is weakened most when region is controlled for. The weakening of the positive relationship between the black/white earnings ratio and white median earnings suggests that a good part, but not all, of this positive association is caused by the systematic difference between the North and the South. Far from attenuating the results, however, this fact merely reflects the reality that both the black/white male earnings ratio and white male median earnings are lower in the South than in the North (a fact which supports the overall conclusion). In sum, it appears that earnings discrimination against third world people has a slight tendency to reduce white earnings.

That the relationship between intensity of racial discrimination and white earnings is real, and not a spurious result of the statistics used, is shown by (1) the fact that the observed correlations are positive (an effect which could not be produced by the ratio-correlation effect) and (2) by the fact that the correlation between white male median earnings and black male median earnings controlling for personal

Table 1. The Relationship between Black Male/White Male Earnings and Measures of White Gain: 1969 a

Black Male/White Male Earnings (All 50 States) Controlling for:

Personal Percentage Region Zero- Percentage Percentage Income in Manu- (South/ Order Third World Urban per Capita facturing Non-South)

White Male Median Earnings +.27 +.29 +.25 +.16 +.27 09* White Male Gini Inequality Index -.53 -.35 -. 52 -.53 -.46 -.49

The 25 States with over 12 Percent of Their Populations Third World White Male Median Earnings +.46 +.33 +.20 +.33 +.54 +.21 White Male Gini Inequality Index -.58 -.43 -.54 -.64 -.56 -.63

A Data for earnings is for 1969, that for percentage third world is for 1970. Third world refers to blacks, American Indians, Asians and people of Spanish origin.

* +.06 when all factors are simultaneously controlled for. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population, 1970 Detailed Characteristics (for

each of the 50 states). U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population, 1970 General Population Charac- teristics, U.S. Summary. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population, 1970 Special Reports: Persons of Spanish Origin. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population, 1970 Detailed Characteristics, U.S. Summary.




Table 2. Relationship between White Male Median Earnings and Black Male Median Earnings: 1969

Controlling for Personal Income per Capita and

No Other Percentage Percentage Percentage in Region Zero-Order Variable Third World Urban Manufacturing (South/Non-South)

.68 .46 .48 .46 .44 .49

Source: Same as Table 1.

income per capita suggests the same conclusion as the relations found in Table 1 (see Table 2).

These results should be interpreted to mean that higher black earnings result in higher white earnings, even controlling for relative overall wealth, i.e., that whites benefit from blacks being paid more.

The correlation between the Gini inequality index for white males and the ratio of black to white male median earnings is -.53, indicating that the greater the discrimination against third world people, the greater the inequality among whites. This relationship is consistently upheld when percentage third world, percent urban, personal income per capita, percentage of the labor force in manufacturing, and region are controlled for. It is also consistently upheld when just those 25 states with at least 12% of their population third world are examined. It seems clear that earnings discrimination against third world people produces earnings inequality among whites and thus, that poorer white workers lose relative to high paid skilled workers, professionals, managers, owners, etc. from economic discrimination against third world people (what Reich, but not Becker, leads us to expect).

The correlation between white male median earnings and the percentage third world is -.07, indicating that there does not appear to be any increase in white earnings with increasing relative numbers of third world people (see Table 3). When only those states with more than 12% third world people are examined, the very slight negative relationship observed for all 50 states becomes stronger, -.39-indicating that in these states, the more third world people relative to whites, the lower white earnings. When percent urban, personal income per capita and percentage in manufacturing are controlled for, the same basic

relationships are upheld in all cases for both sets of states. In the states with at least 12% of their populations third world, controlling for region also makes no difference; but in the country as a whole, a slight positive relation appears when region is controlled for. However, when region is controlled for simultaneously with the other three control factors a correlation coefficient of -.25 is found, indicating that the initial result obtained when controlling for region is spurious. In sum, there is no relation of any consequence between the proportion of a state's population that is third world and median white earnings in that state. If anything, there is actually a very slight negative relationship; i.e., whites are slightly better off where there are fewer third world peoples.

The correlation between the Gini inequality index for white males and the percentage of a state that is third world is +.50 indicating that the higher the proportion of third world people in a state's population, the more inequality there is among whites. This relationship is un- affected by controlling for percent urban, personal income per capita, percentage in manufacturing or region. It is also virtually the same in the 25 states with over 12% of their population third world as it is in all 50 states. Thus, it is clear that, rather than promoting equality among whites, the presence of third world people promotes inequality, and thus that the relatively poor white workers lose disproportionately from economic discrimination against third world people compared to the better paid whites.

In conclusion, no matter whether economic discrimination is measured by the ratio of black/white male earnings or by the percentage of a state that is third world and no matter whether white gain is measured by the median white male earnings




Table 3. Relationship between Percent of Population that is Third World and Measures of White Gain: 1969-1970

Percent Third World (All 50 States) Controlling for:

Personal Zero- Percentage Income Percentage in Region Order Urban per Capita Manufacturing (South/Non-South)

White Male Median Earnings -.07 -.25 -.11 -.06 16*

White Male Gini Inequality Index +.50 +.56 +.50 +.50 +.45

The 25 States with over 12 Percent of Their Populations Third World White Male Median

Earnings -.39 -.40 -.44 -.47 -.40

White Male Gini Inequality Index +.53 +.53 +.55 +.49 +.53

*-.25 when all factors are simultaneously controlled for. Source: Same as Table 1.

or by the Gini index of white male earnings inequality, it is clear that white working people do not gain economically by economic discrimination against third world people. The thesis put forth by Becker, Thurow and Glenn is thus demonstrated to be wrong (at least for 1969-70). Reich, on the other hand, is almost fully supported. White workers appear to actually lose economically from racial discrimination. These results appear to support the Marxist theory of the relationship between economic discrimination and white gain. In order to test whether or not the Marxist explanatory schema offered by Reich is in fact valid, it is necessary to do a further analysis of the relationship among the various variables in the Marxist causative schema.

The Causes and Effect of Working Class Unity

The Marxist thesis predicts that the primary way racism acts on white gain is through the intermediary of working class solidarity. If the Marxist theory is correct, we would expect the disappearance of a substantial part of the correlation between the measures of discrimination and white gain when the measure of working class solidarity is controlled for. The percentage of a state's non-agricultural labor force (which includes both third world people and whites) which belongs to trade unions

is used as the measure of the intermediate variable-working class solidarity.4

When percentage in trade unions is controlled for in the correlation between the ratio of black male to white male median earnings and white male median earnings, the initially observed correlation disappears indicating that the relationship between these two measures is more or less caused by the effect of racial discrimination on working class solidarity and the effect of working class solidarity on white male median earnings (see Table 4). There is only a very slight negative relationship between the percentage third world and white male median earnings whether or not the percentage of the work force in trade unions is controlled for. Nevertheless when the measure of working class solidarity is controlled for, the size of the correlation is reduced by about half (- .25 without the control and -.10 with it for the correlations controlling for all possible demographic

4The ratio of third world people to whites in trade unions is approximately the same as in the labor force as a whole. In 1972, while blacks made up 11.6% of the civilian labor force, they were 12.4% of all trade union members. Thus, percentage of the labor force in trade unions can be taken to be a fair measure of interracial working class solidarity and not just white working class solidarity. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, reported in U.S. News and World Report, January 22, 1973, p. 76.)




Table 4. Relationship between the Measures of Racism and White Male Earnings Controlling for Strength of Unions: 1969-1970

Controlling for: Personal Region

Zero- Percentage Percentage Income Percentage in (South/ Order Third World Urban per Capita Manufacturing Non-South)

Black Male/White Male Median Earnings .01 .09 .00 -.00 .02 05*

Percentage Third World .14 ... -.05 +.04 .13 +.22

*-.10 when five factors (excluding percentage third world) are controlled for. Source: Same as Table 1.

factors). This suggests that about half of the slight effect that percentage third world has on white male median earnings is caused by the effect of percentage third world on working class solidarity.

In sum, the more intense racial discrimination is, the lower are white earnings because of the effect of the intermediate variable of working class solidarity, while there is little relation between the percentage of a state that is third world and white male median earnings; i.e., whites neither gain nor lose significantly from the presence of third world people.

When the ratio of black male to white male median earnings and the percentage third world is correlated with the Gini inequality index for white male earnings, controlling for percentage in trade unions, the size of the correlation is in both cases about 10% less than what it was without controlling for the measure of working class solidarity (see Table 5). This indicates that the effect of both the intensity and the potential impact of racial discrimination on

inequality among whites is caused only secondarily by the intermediate variable of working class solidarity.

Although there are relationships of the kind expected between the measures of racial discrimination and the white male inequality index, these relationships must be caused through a linkage other than that of working class solidarity (as measured by membership in unions). Some possibilities that exist include those men- tioned by Glenn (1966): the effect of discrimination in decreasing all-around productivity and the greater burden of taxation required for the state to deal with the results of discrimination, and those men- tioned by Reich (1971) who suggests a relationship between economic discrimination and white gain operating through inadequate education and poor public services.

Conclusions

No evidence at all for the white gain hypothesis has been found. No matter how

Table 5. Relationship between Measures of Racism and White Male Gini Inequality Index Control- ling for Strengths of Unions: 1969-1970

Controlling for:

Personal Region Zero- Percentage Percentage Income Percentage in (South/ Order Third World Urban per Capita Manufacturing Non-South)

Black Male/White Male Median Earnings -.44 -.27 -.44 -.45 -.35 -.45

Percentage Third World +.45 .. +.50 +.43 +.46 +.47

Source: Same as Table 1.




measured, whites do not benefit economically by economic discrimination. White workers especially appear to benefit economically from the absence of economic discrimination against third world people, both in the absolute level of their earnings and in relative equality among whites. The gain of poorer whites from the absence of economic discrimination against third world people has been shown to be, in part, caused by the effect that the lack of discrimination has on increasing working class solidarity and, consequently, the ability of the working class to secure better economic conditions for itself. The Marxist theory of the effect of racial discrimination of white workers is thus partially borne out.

The political implications of these results are the opposite from those suggested by Becker (1971), Thurow (1969) and Glenn (1963; 1966). All three men, find- ing that white workers benefit economically from racial discrimination, suggest that white workers thus have a stake in its preservation and should be expected to oppose equality for third world people (since equality is against their rational economic interests). Reich, on the other hand, arguing in the Marxist tradition, suggests that because both third world and white workers lose economically from racism, there is a rational basis of interracial solidarity in the struggle against racial discrimination. The weight of this study is in support of Reich's conclusions.

REFERENCES

Baron, Harold 1971 "The demand for black labor." Radical

America 5:1-46. Becker, Gary S.

1971 The Economics of Discrimination. Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press.

Blalock, Hubert 1957 "Percent non-white and discrimination

in the South." American Sociological Review 22:677-82.

Blauner, Robert 1972 Racial Oppression in America. New

York: Harper and Row Bracey, John, August Meier and Elliott Rudwick

1971 Black Workers and Organized Labor. Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth.

Brody, David 1960 Steelworkers in America: The Non-

Union Era. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press.

Cutright, Phillips 1965 "Negro subordination and white gains."

American Sociological Review 30:110- 12.

Dollard, John 1937 Class and Caste in a Southern Town.

New Haven: Yale University Press. Faltermayer, Edmund

1974 "Who will do the dirty work tomor- row?" Fortune 84:132-8.

Fuguitt, Glenn and Stanley Lieberson 1974 "Correlations of ratios or difference

scores having common terms." Pp. 128- 44 in E. F. Borgatta (ed.), Sociological Methodology (1973-4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glenn, Norval 1963 "Occupational benefits to whites from

subordination of Negroes." American Sociological Review 28:443-8.

1966 "White gains from Negro subordination." Social Problems 14:159-78.

Krueger, Anne 1963 "The economics of discrimination." The

Journal of Political Economy 71:443-8. Kuh, E. and J. R. Meyer

1955 "Correlation and regression estimates when the data are ratios." Econometrica 23:400-16.

Miller, Herbert 1966 Income Distribution in the United

States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office.

Oppenheimer, Martin 1974 "The sub-proletariat: dark skins and

dirty work." The Insurgent Sociologist 4:7-20.

Rangarajan, C. and S. Chatterjee 1969 "A note on comparison between cor-

relation coefficients of original and transformed variables." American Statis- tician 23:28-9.

Reich, Michael 1971 "The economics of racism." Pp. 107-13

in David M. Gordon (ed.), Problems in Political Economy. Lexington, Ma.: Heath.

Spero, Sterling and Abram Harris 1968 The Black Worker and Organized Labor.

New York: Atheneum. Thurow, Lester

1969 Poverty and Discrimination. Washing- ton, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1973a Census of the Population: 1970 De-

tailed Characteristics: U.S. Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

1973b Census of the Population: 1970 De- tailed Characteristics (for each of the 50 states). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.




1973c Census of the Population: 1970 General Population Characteristics, U.S. Sum- mary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office.

1973d Census of the Population, 1970 Special

Reports: Persons of Spanish Origin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. News and World Report 1973 January 22, p. 76.

BLACK-WHITE DIFFERENCES

IN EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT *

ALEJANDRO PORTES KENNETH L. WILSON Duke University University of Texas, Austin

American Sociological Review 1976, Vol. 41 (June): 414-431

Main and interactive effects of racial differences in educational attainment are examined on the basis of a recent longitudinal sample of the U.S. high school population. Availa- bility of aprpopriate measures permits comparison between "comprehensive" models of the attainment sequence between blacks and whites. In agreement with past results, it is found that blacks have higher educational attainment than whites of similar parental status and ability. This additive race effect disappears, however, when the full set of intervening variables is considered. Race interactions are found to affect all endogenous variables. Differences in the process of educational attainment point to the stronger relative role of parental status, measured ability, and school grades among whites, and of self-esteem and educational aspirations among blacks. Implications of these findings, as they suggest differences between "insiders" and "outsiders" to institutional channels for attainment, are examined. Limitations of the data and lines for future research are discussed.

The problem of differential access of whites and non-whites to positions in the American stratification system lies in the midst of two major currents in the empirical literature. On the one hand, the thrust of status attainment research has been oriented toward developing models of the attainment process valid for the society as a whole (Blau and Duncan, 1967; Sewell and Hauser, 1972; Haller and Portes, 1973). On the other hand, the literature concerned with race differences has been oriented mostly toward documenting in-

* Data for this study were generously provided by the director of the Youth in Transition Project, Jerald G. Bachman. We gratefully ac- knowledge his help, as well as that of the Insti- tute for Social Research of the University of Michigan. Support for the analysis was provided by the University Research Institute of the Uni- versity of Texas at Austin. We wish to thank Professors Archibald 0. Haller, William A. Sewell and Sheldon Olson as well as the editor and two ASR reviewers for their helpful com- ments and criticisms. Responsibility for the content and errors rests entirely with the authors.

equalities in opportunity and final attainment among whites and non-whites (Jencks et al., 1973; Duncan, 1967).

Questions logically raised by this last set of results are, first, the extent to which differences in attainment between the races can be explained by a set of mediating variables and, second, the possibility that the very process by which individuals come to attain positions in the stratification system varies with race.

The expanding literature of multivariate modeling analyses of the attainment process has begun to provide answers to these questions. Thus, Blau and Duncan (1967) and Duncan (1968) document the existence of a "double handicap" for blacks in which the advantages of parental achieve- ment fail to convert to advantages for the new cohort, and advantages gained along the way of attainment, i.e., education, fail to convert to occupational and income advantages, relative to whites. Similarly, Cole- man, Blum, Sorensen and Rossi (1972),



albert szymanski - racial discrimination and white gain

Documents

level of white earnings

white gainauthors

white males

white working people

level of white male

economic discrimination

white work ing people

world people