Archive for the ‘demography’ Category
A few semesters ago, one of my social theory students asked me in class how I racially identified myself. I explained that my father was from South America (Colombia) but could trace (most) of his line back to Spain while my mother was almost certainly some mix of Indian and maybe some Spanish from Costa Rica. When I asked my aunt about this, she was a bit surprised. I asked where my grandmother’s ancestors where from and she said Guanacaste, which according to wiki has a population of people with Chorotega and Spanish background. The wiki also points out that Guanacaste’s population includes people from the African Diaspora. She ceded my point.
So I told my student that I’m “toasty brown.” This was the teachable moment. Racial groups are social things, which means that to be a member of the group you need to (a) consider yourself part of the group and (b) have other people affirm that membership. If we use the standard US classification, then I don’t fit in anywhere. I don’t consider myself white, or Black, and certainly not Asian. On a technical level, one might consider me some sort of European and Indian mix, but it would be very misleading to present myself as a tribal member. So that makes me just “kind of brown.”
On bureaucratic forms, I check off “non-white Hispanic” when possible but that’s not always an option. I don’t think that “mixed race” is appropriate since that seems to indicate a person who has parents from two of the “major” census groups (White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American). But often I am at a loss since the “Hispanic” question assumes that the “Big Four” accounts for nearly everyone in the next question. Ie, all Hispanic self-identifiers are Black, White, Asian or Native American. There seems to be little appreciation that there is a mestizo identity and that is different than White or Black. A recent Pew survey highlights this issues. According to a recent press release, about one third of American Latinos do not consider themselves in the Big Four. Most just prefer “Hispanic” (20%) and others consider themselves to be “mixed race” (13%). The bottom line is that in American culture, mestizaje is still under the radar. It will be interesting to see how that changes as Latinos become a larger portion of the population.
So yesterday I offered some pointers to the neighborhood effects literature, which is relevant to the new research on social mobility that is receiving extensive coverage in the NYT and elsewhere. Commenter Robert Park (it’s good to know that earthly departure does not preclude keeping up with orgtheory) mentioned additional work worth highlighting (links added by me):
On the efficacy of residential mobility programs, I’d note the work of Rosenbaum and Rubinowitz “Crossing the Class and Color Lines” which studies the Gautreaux program, on which MTO was based, and more recently, “Climbing Mt. Laurel” by Doug Massey and colleagues and the work of Stefanie Deluca.
I know I have not mentioned many significant scholars, which I hope will be read not as a slight but as a reflection of how deep and rich this literature is in sociology.
But today I want to add a few comments on the question of why Chetty and Hendren’s work is getting so much attention when related work in sociology has not.
The New York Times posted a big feature yesterday on a couple of new papers by Harvard economists Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz. The papers, like much of Chetty’s other work, use deidentified individual-level tax data to get at factors affecting income over time. In this case, they are interested in getting at neighborhood effects—in one paper, county-level effects on intergenerational income change, and in the other, the effects of the Moving to Opportunity experiment, which in the 1990s provided housing vouchers through a lottery system, on the same.
The big findings are that moving to a better neighborhood improves children’s income as adults, with the effects being cumulative. The experimental MTO data shows that each additional year of residence in the new neighborhood contributes linearly to an increase in adult income. However, the effects of a move zero out around age 13, after which they may be negative. The quasi-experimental data on non-MTO moves, which cleverly compares different-age siblings to get at length of exposure to the new neighborhood, points to substantial variation in mobility across counties for children at various income levels. The NYT visualization of this latter data, which is personalized by your location, is really terrific.
It’s some impressive work. But sociologists, of course, have been studying neighborhood effects for a long time. And while there is a lot of interest in the study, there is also a not-totally-unjustified sense of annoyance:
Big News: Economists discover a thing sociologists have been studying in detail for about a century. https://t.co/AxVkIfqsyw
— Mervyn Horgan (@simmelian) May 4, 2015
I’m fascinated both by the studies, sociologists’ reaction to them, and how the research is picked up and interpreted by the media. I tried to put all those things into one post, but it was getting way too long. So I’m going to break my reactions into a couple of chunks. Today, I’ll highlight some of the excellent existing work by sociologists in this area. Tomorrow, I’ll comment on why Chetty and Hendren’s work is getting so much more attention than related work in sociology. And later this week I’ll address how this kind of research gets covered in the media and is likely to be translated into policy conversations.
So for starters, some pointers to the sociology literature.
Sociologist and blogger Phil Cohen has an op-ed in the NY Times on gender inequality. Here’s a key clip:
The assumption of continuous progress has become so ingrained that critics now write as if the feminist steamroller has already reached its destination. The journalists Hanna Rosin (“The End of Men”) and Liza Mundy (“The Richer Sex”) proclaimed women’s impending dominance. The conservative authors Kay S. Hymowitz (“Manning Up”) and Christina Hoff Sommers (“The War Against Boys”) worried that feminist progress was undermining masculinity and steering men toward ruin.
But in fact, the movement toward equality stopped. The labor force hit 46 percent female in 1994, and it hasn’t changed much since. Women’s full-time annual earnings were 76 percent of men’s in 2001, and 77 percent in 2011. Although women do earn a majority of academic degrees, their specialties pay less, so that earnings even for women with doctorate degrees working full time are 77 percent of men’s. Attitudinal changes also stalled. In two decades there has been little change in the level of agreement with the statement, “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”
After two steps forward, we were unprepared for the abrupt slowdown on the road to gender equality. We can make sense of the current predicament, however — and gain a better sense of how to resume our forward motion — if we can grasp the forces that drove the change in the first place.
Read the whole thing.
This post is the second in a blog forum about inequality and organizational theory (see part 1). Isabel Fernandez-Mateo of London Business School wrote the post, and Philip Cohen of the University of Maryland and the Family Inequality blog provided commentary.
Thank you Brayden, Bruce and Jerry for inviting me to participate in this conversation on inequality – a topic which I care deeply about. I would like to post a few thoughts about a type of inequality that I think a lot of other people are also concerned with: the scarcity of women in top jobs. The problem is clear, and the list of potential solutions is long – quotas, changes in firms’ performance evaluation systems, family friendly policies, etc. One could thus easily assume that by now we have a very good understanding of why the problem exists in the first place (i.e. how and why we lose women as we go up the hierarchy). I believe, however, that we are not even close. For starters, we may be looking in the wrong places.
For decades, our knowledge of careers and inequality has been closely linked to the study of internal labor markets: how firms allocate people to jobs. As a result, our explanations for why so few women get placed in top positions have mostly focused on the role of organizational practices, which create barriers for women in internal promotion. Roberto Fernandez makes this point in a couple of recent papers, where he reminds us that the metaphor of the “glass ceiling” is alive and well.
And yet we have some pretty good evidence that the traditional career model, in which the best route up is to be promoted within a single firm, is losing its dominance. Read the rest of this entry »
Institutional theorists have become obsessed with explaining sources of institutional change in organizations. During neoinstitutional theory’s rise to prominence, it was mostly a theory of stability and homogenization of society, but in the last decade or so more and more institutional scholars have started focusing on change dynamics. There are some obviously good reasons for this, including the purpose of making institutional theory a more useful tool. Theories of institutional change often try to find endogenous explanations, e.g., institutional contradictions, competition between institutional logics. Still most of these explanations, because they give primacy to higher-level processes, ignore what’s going on at the ground level or at least fail to take into account the processes whereby people change their beliefs, adapt values, and alter their identities to make room for a new institutional practice.
In our rush to generate endogenous explanations for institutional change, it seems that some of the obvious micro-level processes of institutional change have been ignored. This research completely ignores the people whose “hearts and minds” must change in order to actually create lasting institutional change, even though for a new routine to become institutionalized people have to put it into action and for a new policy to be seen as “legitimate” people have to be convinced of the policy’s appropriateness. Perhaps the lack of emphasis on these micro-dynamics is the result of methodological biases. Demographic analysis, public opinion research, and experimental methods are mostly outside the toolkit of most institutional theorists. And yet, there’s probably a lot we could get from these analyses.
One potentially very important mechanism of institutional change is cohort replacement. By that I mean the replacement of old guards of organizational members and leaders with newer cohorts who have different beliefs, opinions, and values. It’s strange, when you think about it, that institutional theorists haven’t considered in any serious way how cohort replacement affects organizational practices and policies, even though opinion research indicates that cohort differences explain significant variation in beliefs and attitudes. Cohort differences may often matter more than life stage differences in explaining political opinions and attitudes. Take the case of liberalizing beliefs about same sex marriage. One study indicates that about half of the growth in support for same sex marriage is the result of cohort replacement. Younger generations are simply more open to this practice than preceding generations. We can expect that in a couple of generations, same sex marriage will be legal everywhere due to cohort replacement.
How might cohort replacement explain organizational change? One way to examine this would be to look at how demographic differences across organizations explain openness to new policies/practices or rates of early adoption. Another fruitful path would be to explain how cohort replacement creates identity conflict in organizations, a potentially crucial source of friction underlying change. Cohorts, in this sense, could be conceptualized as the carriers of different identities and logics. A nice illustration of this type of research is Nancy Whittier’s 1997 ASR paper about micro-cohorts and the transformation of the feminist movement. Even though the paper is often cited as an important illustration of how collective identity matters in movements, I think it’s undervalued as a study of institutional change. Another potential line of investigation would be to examine the link between cohort replacement and selection processes at the field level-of-analysis. One of my students pointed out to me yesterday that Haveman’s and Rao’s 1997 AJS paper on the thrift industry relies to an extent on the imagery of cohort replacement to explain why certain forms of thrift were selected.
More generally speaking, there should be a stronger link between research on organizational demography (e.g., see Damon Phillips’s work on law firms; Heather Haveman on managerial tenure) and institutional theory. Obviously, rates of entry and exit of managers affect organizational processes. The question for institutional theory is, how do these demographic changes affect institutional stability and heterogeneity?
Q: Why are east Asian Americans (Chinese/Koreans) are more willing to adopt Western names than central Asians (e.g., Indians)?
Don’t you dare fall back on “culture” unless you can really lay out the mechanism.