Persistent Disparity provides a comprehensive examination of the magnitude and scope of racial economic disparity in the United States. The authors directly assess the extent of black economic progress in the US since World War II and address the controversy of whether the racial income gap is closing or widening as America approaches the 21st century. Darity and Myers explicitly make the connection between what the theory of racial inequality espouses and corresponding policy recommendations for remedying such disparity such as affirmative action and reparations. The authors challenge the cultural-genetic explanation and advance a new theoretical explanation that incorporates a more expansive characterization of the nature and role of discrimination. They also conclude that conventional anti-discrimination efforts are unlikely to be sufficient to close the gap. This book will be essential reading for anyone interested in US social and economic history, political economy, African-American studies, and public policy.

The relationship between crime and the economy has received too little attention from researchers. This volume remedies that deficit, resurrecting several classic writings on this elusive topic by and about blacks, and presenting new contributions by researchers at the frontier of work on the subject.Among the landmark articles included are W.E.B. Dubois' famous examination of crime in Philadelphia, an analysis of black criminal behavior by Walter Willcox, who was chief statistician of the Census Bureau at the time he wrote this essay, and excerpts from the ninth Atlanta Conference on Negro Crime. The frontier articles use quality microdata to understand particular aspects of criminal justice processes. They address the relationship between employment and criminal behavior, tradeoffs among education, employment, and crime, and the link between overall economic conditions and rates of incarceration. Among the authors represented in the landmark research articles are Harold Votey and Llad Phillips, Richard Freeman, David Good and Maureen Pirog-Good, Dario Melossi, and Samuel Meyers and William Sabol. Richard MaGahey concludes the volume with comments on the current status of research in the field.This volume captures the emerging tension within scholarship on race and crime, and provides both a reflective vision of work in this area as well as state-of-the-art research by leading scholars.

There are wide racial disparities in virtually every sphere of economic life. African American workers earn less than whites. They are more likely to be denied loans than whites. Minority-owned businesses are less likely to win lucrative bids on state and federal contracts than are white male owned businesses. Black children are more likely than whites to be reported to child protective services for neglect or abuse. There are even huge disparities in downing rates between blacks and whites. What to do about these disparities? There is a fundamental disagreement about the appropriate remedies to these varied indicators of racial inequality. Part of the disagreement stems from differences in public perceptions about the underlying causes of the inequality. But, another form of disagreement relates to the opposition to the remedy of choice during much of the 1970s and 1980s: Affirmative Action. Race conscious remedies -- like affirmative action policies in hiring, college admissions, and business contracting -- suffer from legal and constitutional challenges, compounded by hostility from the majority of Americans. The alternative - race-neutral remedies - attempt to address racial disparities without directly targeting benefits exclusively to racial minority group members. In doing so, race-neutral remedies putatively help minorities without hurting majority group members. The authors of Race Neutrality: Rationalizing Remedies to Racial Inequality make the case that policy analysts should shift from a focus on whether a remedy is race-conscious or not to a focus on the underlying problem that the alternative remedies is attempting to resolve. This type of rethinking of the problem of racial inequality will reveal that sometimes race-neutral remedies hold great promise in reducing disparities. Often, however, race-neutral remedies fail to do what they are intended to do. The authors challenge the reader to think about why race-neutral remedies-while desireable on their face-might fail to resolve protracted and persistent patterns of racial inequality in market and non-market contexts.

There are wide racial disparities in virtually every sphere of economic life. African American workers earn less than whites. They are more likely to be denied loans than whites. Minority-owned businesses are less likely to win lucrative bids on state and federal contracts than are white male owned businesses. Black children are more likely than whites to be reported to child protective services for neglect or abuse. There are even huge disparities in downing rates between blacks and whites. What to do about these disparities? There is a fundamental disagreement about the appropriate remedies to these varied indicators of racial inequality. Part of the disagreement stems from differences in public perceptions about the underlying causes of the inequality. But, another form of disagreement relates to the opposition to the remedy of choice during much of the 1970s and 1980s: Affirmative Action. Race conscious remedies -- like affirmative action policies in hiring, college admissions, and business contracting -- suffer from legal and constitutional challenges, compounded by hostility from the majority of Americans. The alternative – race-neutral remedies – attempt to address racial disparities without directly targeting benefits exclusively to racial minority group members. In doing so, race-neutral remedies putatively help minorities without hurting majority group members. The authors of Race Neutrality: Rationalizing Remedies to Racial Inequality make the case that policy analysts should shift from a focus on whether a remedy is race-conscious or not to a focus on the underlying problem that the alternative remedies is attempting to resolve. This type of rethinking of the problem of racial inequality will reveal that sometimes race-neutral remedies hold great promise in reducing disparities. Often, however, race-neutral remedies fail to do what they are intended to do. The authors challenge the reader to think about why race-neutral remedies—while desireable on their face—might fail to resolve protracted and persistent patterns of racial inequality in market and non-market contexts.