Poisoning the Well: Law & Economics, Business Development, and Racial Inequality

Robert Suggs
{"title":"Poisoning the Well: Law & Economics, Business Development, and Racial Inequality","authors":"Robert Suggs","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.572963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Law & Economics analysis of racial discrimination has impoverished our thinking about race. This legacy comes from its conclusion, reached early in its development, that laws prohibiting racial discrimination were unnecessary and wasteful. This controversial policy recommendation reflected an oversight, which, in retrospect, seems obvious, but which over more than three decades remained unnoticed by both adherents and opponents. Law & Economics built its flawed analysis of discrimination on the concept of \"psychic\" income. White workers and employers would experience psychic losses of income if forced by antidiscrimination laws to forego their preference for nonassociation with black workers. This analysis and the ensuing critical commentary failed to consider that black workers might experience psychic losses as victims of discrimination. When their losses and gains are considered, the economic analysis changes fundamentally. This error imposed real costs, because within the civil rights community, the original conclusion reached by Law & Economics, (which flatly contradicted the historical record), discredited economic analysis of discrimination. Other schools of economics reject the troubling assumptions that led Law & Economics astray, but the potential insights offered by these other schools have been lost. Business ownership accounts for too much wealth and power for real equality to exist unless a substantial black entrepreneurial group develops. Because discrimination has not been and cannot be prohibited in private commercial transactions, this group remains underdeveloped. Spurring the growth of this group requires interventions that meld seamlessly with existing market arrangements. Such a melding depends upon a sophisticated appreciation of how race affects market activity. We currently lack such an understanding, and without more attention to economic analysis, we cannot develop one, and real equality will remain a chimera.","PeriodicalId":431450,"journal":{"name":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurisprudence & Legal Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572963","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Law & Economics analysis of racial discrimination has impoverished our thinking about race. This legacy comes from its conclusion, reached early in its development, that laws prohibiting racial discrimination were unnecessary and wasteful. This controversial policy recommendation reflected an oversight, which, in retrospect, seems obvious, but which over more than three decades remained unnoticed by both adherents and opponents. Law & Economics built its flawed analysis of discrimination on the concept of "psychic" income. White workers and employers would experience psychic losses of income if forced by antidiscrimination laws to forego their preference for nonassociation with black workers. This analysis and the ensuing critical commentary failed to consider that black workers might experience psychic losses as victims of discrimination. When their losses and gains are considered, the economic analysis changes fundamentally. This error imposed real costs, because within the civil rights community, the original conclusion reached by Law & Economics, (which flatly contradicted the historical record), discredited economic analysis of discrimination. Other schools of economics reject the troubling assumptions that led Law & Economics astray, but the potential insights offered by these other schools have been lost. Business ownership accounts for too much wealth and power for real equality to exist unless a substantial black entrepreneurial group develops. Because discrimination has not been and cannot be prohibited in private commercial transactions, this group remains underdeveloped. Spurring the growth of this group requires interventions that meld seamlessly with existing market arrangements. Such a melding depends upon a sophisticated appreciation of how race affects market activity. We currently lack such an understanding, and without more attention to economic analysis, we cannot develop one, and real equality will remain a chimera.
毒害水井:法律与经济、商业发展和种族不平等
法律与经济学对种族歧视的分析使我们对种族的思考变得贫乏。这一遗产来自其发展初期得出的结论,即禁止种族歧视的法律是不必要和浪费的。这一有争议的政策建议反映了一种疏忽,回过头来看,这似乎是显而易见的,但在30多年的时间里,支持者和反对者都没有注意到这一点。《法律与经济学》将其有缺陷的歧视分析建立在“精神”收入的概念上。如果反歧视法迫使白人工人和雇主放弃他们不与黑人工人交往的偏好,他们将经历精神上的收入损失。这种分析和随后的批评评论没有考虑到黑人工人作为歧视的受害者可能会经历精神上的损失。如果考虑到他们的得失,经济分析就会发生根本性的变化。这个错误造成了实际的代价,因为在民权界,法律与经济学得出的最初结论(与历史记录完全矛盾)使对歧视的经济学分析失去了可信度。其他经济学派拒绝接受那些让《法律与经济学》误入歧途的令人不安的假设,但这些学派提供的潜在洞见已经消失。企业所有权占了太多的财富和权力,除非有一个庞大的黑人企业家群体发展起来,否则真正的平等是不可能存在的。由于在私人商业交易中没有也不可能禁止歧视,这一群体仍然不发达。刺激这一群体的增长,需要与现有市场安排无缝融合的干预措施。这种融合取决于对种族如何影响市场活动的深刻认识。我们目前缺乏这样的理解,如果不更多地关注经济分析,我们就无法发展这样的理解,真正的平等将仍然是一种幻想。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信