The Equal Employment Opportunity Omission

William Lazonick, Philip W. Moss, Joshua Weitz
{"title":"The Equal Employment Opportunity Omission","authors":"William Lazonick, Philip W. Moss, Joshua Weitz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2993928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On June 2, 1965, under a mandate established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Congress created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws related to employment. The expectation was that African Americans would be prime beneficiaries of the EEOC. There was no assumption that the EEOC, on its own, could reverse deep-rooted employment discrimination against blacks. But in the late 1960s there was optimism that, in combination with equal educational opportunity and the strong demand for unionized workers in the well-paid manufacturing jobs that marked the post-World War II decades, the EEOC could help to ensure that an ever-increasing number of blacks would ascend to the American middle class. \nAfrican Americans as a group are better educated than they were in the 1960s, and, as discriminatory norms and practices have lessened, large numbers of college-educated blacks have experienced upward employment mobility into professional, technical, and administrative occupations. But the promise of a large-scale ascendancy of blacks to middle-class status, characterized by secure and well-paid employment, has not been fulfilled. Our basic thesis is that, in combination with the institutions of racism which remain widespread in American society, the erosion of secure and well-paid employment opportunities is a major reason for the persistence since the 1980s of African Americans as disproportionately disadvantaged. Our contribution to the larger debate on the economics of race is to focus on the role of corporate resource allocation as the prime determinant of the quantity and quality of employment opportunities in the economy. The decline of middle-class employment opportunities has adversely affected the majority of the U.S. labor force of all races, ethnicities, and genders. African Americans, however, have been more vulnerable than other demographic groups to this decline. \nU.S. institutions of corporate governance vest power over major resource-allocation decisions in the hands of senior executives, supported by their hand-picked corporate boards. Given the enormous size of the major business corporations and their centrality to economic activity, the resource-allocation decisions made by senior executives of major U.S. corporations profoundly influence the operation and performance of the economy as a whole—including the availability, or not, of secure and well-paid employment opportunities. The failure to include an analysis of corporate resource allocation and how it has changed over the past half century in the policy debate on income inequality is what we call the “equal employment opportunity omission.”","PeriodicalId":330992,"journal":{"name":"New Institutional Economics eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Institutional Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2993928","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

On June 2, 1965, under a mandate established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Congress created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce federal anti-discrimination laws related to employment. The expectation was that African Americans would be prime beneficiaries of the EEOC. There was no assumption that the EEOC, on its own, could reverse deep-rooted employment discrimination against blacks. But in the late 1960s there was optimism that, in combination with equal educational opportunity and the strong demand for unionized workers in the well-paid manufacturing jobs that marked the post-World War II decades, the EEOC could help to ensure that an ever-increasing number of blacks would ascend to the American middle class. African Americans as a group are better educated than they were in the 1960s, and, as discriminatory norms and practices have lessened, large numbers of college-educated blacks have experienced upward employment mobility into professional, technical, and administrative occupations. But the promise of a large-scale ascendancy of blacks to middle-class status, characterized by secure and well-paid employment, has not been fulfilled. Our basic thesis is that, in combination with the institutions of racism which remain widespread in American society, the erosion of secure and well-paid employment opportunities is a major reason for the persistence since the 1980s of African Americans as disproportionately disadvantaged. Our contribution to the larger debate on the economics of race is to focus on the role of corporate resource allocation as the prime determinant of the quantity and quality of employment opportunities in the economy. The decline of middle-class employment opportunities has adversely affected the majority of the U.S. labor force of all races, ethnicities, and genders. African Americans, however, have been more vulnerable than other demographic groups to this decline. U.S. institutions of corporate governance vest power over major resource-allocation decisions in the hands of senior executives, supported by their hand-picked corporate boards. Given the enormous size of the major business corporations and their centrality to economic activity, the resource-allocation decisions made by senior executives of major U.S. corporations profoundly influence the operation and performance of the economy as a whole—including the availability, or not, of secure and well-paid employment opportunities. The failure to include an analysis of corporate resource allocation and how it has changed over the past half century in the policy debate on income inequality is what we call the “equal employment opportunity omission.”
平等就业机会的遗漏
1965年6月2日,根据1964年《民权法案》第七章的规定,美国国会设立了平等就业机会委员会(EEOC),以执行与就业有关的联邦反歧视法律。人们期望非裔美国人将成为平等就业机会委员会的主要受益者。没有人认为平等就业机会委员会本身就能扭转对黑人根深蒂固的就业歧视。但在20世纪60年代末,人们乐观地认为,再加上平等的教育机会,以及二战后几十年对加入工会的工人在高薪制造业工作的强烈需求,平等就业机会委员会可以帮助确保越来越多的黑人进入美国中产阶级。非洲裔美国人作为一个群体,受教育程度比20世纪60年代要高,而且,随着歧视性规范和做法的减少,大量受过大学教育的黑人经历了向上的就业流动,进入专业、技术和行政岗位。但是,黑人大规模上升到中产阶级地位的承诺,其特点是有安全和高薪的工作,并没有实现。我们的基本论点是,再加上在美国社会仍然普遍存在的种族主义制度,安全而高薪的就业机会受到侵蚀,这是自20世纪80年代以来非洲裔美国人一直处于不成比例的不利地位的一个主要原因。我们对种族经济学这一更大范围辩论的贡献,在于关注企业资源配置作为经济中就业机会数量和质量的主要决定因素的作用。中产阶级就业机会的减少对美国所有种族、民族和性别的大多数劳动力产生了不利影响。然而,非洲裔美国人比其他人口群体更容易受到这种下降的影响。美国的公司治理制度将重大资源配置决策权交给了高管,并得到了他们精心挑选的公司董事会的支持。鉴于大型商业公司的巨大规模及其在经济活动中的核心地位,美国大型企业高管所做的资源配置决策深刻影响着整个经济的运行和表现,包括能否获得安全和高薪的就业机会。在关于收入不平等的政策辩论中,未能纳入对企业资源配置及其在过去半个世纪中的变化的分析,我们称之为“平等就业机会的遗漏”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信