Intergroup Economic Inequality Across Countries: An lntroductory Essay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased research attention is now being given to understanding patterns of and ethnic economic inequality across countries (see Nesiah 1997; Darity 1998; Darity and Nembhard 2000; Darity and Deshpande 2000). Among the major general findings that have emerged from these recent comparative inquiries are the following: 1 Countries with a lower general level of income inequality do not necessarily display lower levels of intergroup inequality 2 Intergroup disparity is persistent and significant in countries at all levels of development, whether development is measured narrowly by per capita income or more broadly by a more encompassing index of well-being, like the Human Development Index. 3 Greater gender equity is not generally associated with lower levels of intergroup equality. 4 Higher rates of economic growth do not invariably close economic gaps between and ethnic groups nor does lower economic growth inevitably widen the gap. 5 Intergroup division at sufficiently high levels of tension to produce civil war conditions or genocidal violence obviously is inimical with economic development, but the mere fact of intergroup economic inequality is not. 6 In all countries where statistical investigations have been undertaken to assess the presence of discrimination in employment markets, substantial evidence of discriminatory losses in earnings and occupational status consistently are detected against a subaltern group. These results are complemented by the findings of direct tests of employment discrimination conducted via audit studies. 7 Cross-national evidence does not indicate that employment discrimination necessarily declines overtime, even in strongly market-oriented economies. 8 Adoption and implementation of remedies for intergroup disparity, such as affirmation action programs have not proven sufficient to close the gap anywhere, but, there is good evidence to suggest that the gaps would be even wider in the absence of such programs. One phase of the comparative inquiry involves construction of and examination of cross-section, cross-country macro-level data at the international level on a variety of country characteristics and on group economic differences within each country. A second phase of the comparative inquiry involves development of increasingly detailed and accurate accounts of intergroup disparity for each country. The six papers that comprise this symposium in The Review of Social Economy contribute directly to the second phase of the comparative inquiry. Two of the papers deepen our knowledge of the empirical gaps between groups and the extent of estimated employment discrimination in Brazil and in Canada. Peggy Lovell's contribution on Brazil consolidates the puncturing of the still popular myth, the myth of racial democracy, that Brazil is a country where inequality is solely a matter of social class and not race. France Twine's (1998) superb ethnographic study, Racism in a Racial Democracy, provides an effective qualitative demolition of the myth, while Lovell's work provides the detailed quantitative dimension. Lovell demonstrates sustained and significant disparities persist between Afro-Brazilians, both blacks and browns, and Euro-Brazilians or whites. She also demonstrates that employment discrimination is an important factor depressing the earnings and occupational attainment of both black and brown Brazilians and examines the spatial aspects of disparity and discrimination. In an earlier coauthored study, Morton Stelcner (Stelcner and Kyriazis 1995) examined earnings inequality, by race and ethnicity in Canada, using the 1981 Canadian census. The current essay comprehensively reviews the existing literature on intergroup disparity in Canada based upon a variety of surveys and updates the findings from Stelcner-Kyriazis by utilising the 1991 census. A striking result is the persistence across both censuses of employment discrimination against blacks in Canada. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".