Global value chains and racial inequality in the US labor market, 1979–2017

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Manjing Gao , Matthew C. Mahutga , Ronald Kwon
{"title":"Global value chains and racial inequality in the US labor market, 1979–2017","authors":"Manjing Gao ,&nbsp;Matthew C. Mahutga ,&nbsp;Ronald Kwon","doi":"10.1016/j.rssm.2025.101023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We examine how global value chains (GVCs) impact “between” and “within-race” US labor market inequalities. GVCs change the returns to occupations and human capital categories (economic effects), as well as the share of the population within these categories (compositional effects). US racism should interact with GVCs to produce racially disparate GVC effects. We employ variance function regression to examine between and within-race inequality simultaneously, and innovate on classical decompositions to quantify how much of the change in each can be attributed to racially disparate effects of GVCs. GVCs increase inequality within <em>and</em> between races. These effects are largest <em>within races</em>, where almost no racial differences are observed. <em>Between races</em>, racially disparate GVC effects were often inconsistent with contemporary theories of US racial inequality. Economic effects were always most beneficial for Asian Americans, and frequently more beneficial for African Americans and Latino/a workers than for Whites. Compositional effects were nearly always most beneficial for Asian Americans, and reduced between-race inequality in aggregate. Overall, then, GVCs increased between-race inequality because large occupational and skill income gaps persisted between races, because Asian American gains are net inequality increasing, and because absolute and/or relative (to White) gains by African American and Latino/a workers in some categories were too small to offset the absolute and/or relative gains of Asian Americans and Whites in others.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47384,"journal":{"name":"Research in Social Stratification and Mobility","volume":"96 ","pages":"Article 101023"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Social Stratification and Mobility","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562425000149","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We examine how global value chains (GVCs) impact “between” and “within-race” US labor market inequalities. GVCs change the returns to occupations and human capital categories (economic effects), as well as the share of the population within these categories (compositional effects). US racism should interact with GVCs to produce racially disparate GVC effects. We employ variance function regression to examine between and within-race inequality simultaneously, and innovate on classical decompositions to quantify how much of the change in each can be attributed to racially disparate effects of GVCs. GVCs increase inequality within and between races. These effects are largest within races, where almost no racial differences are observed. Between races, racially disparate GVC effects were often inconsistent with contemporary theories of US racial inequality. Economic effects were always most beneficial for Asian Americans, and frequently more beneficial for African Americans and Latino/a workers than for Whites. Compositional effects were nearly always most beneficial for Asian Americans, and reduced between-race inequality in aggregate. Overall, then, GVCs increased between-race inequality because large occupational and skill income gaps persisted between races, because Asian American gains are net inequality increasing, and because absolute and/or relative (to White) gains by African American and Latino/a workers in some categories were too small to offset the absolute and/or relative gains of Asian Americans and Whites in others.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The study of social inequality is and has been one of the central preoccupations of social scientists. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility is dedicated to publishing the highest, most innovative research on issues of social inequality from a broad diversity of theoretical and methodological perspectives. The journal is also dedicated to cutting edge summaries of prior research and fruitful exchanges that will stimulate future research on issues of social inequality. The study of social inequality is and has been one of the central preoccupations of social scientists.
×
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