Encyclopedia of Sociology

DISCRIMINATION

reduce the liabilities of those who have

already fallen victim to inferior schools.

4. Microcosms cannot escape the discrimina-
   tory impact of the societal macrocosm.
   Just as salary differences across academic
   disciplines reflect general occupational
   wage structures, institutions are often both
   prey to and participant in broader social
   forces. Narrow, legalistic approaches to
   remedy are inadequate for addressing this
   dynamic of discrimination.


5. Empirical research on group discrimina-
   tion must mirror the phenomenon in
   its variety and complexity. The regres-
   sion decomposition approach has proven
   useful but has its limitations (see also
   Dempster 1988, and the ensuing commen-
   tary). Regression analyses could provide
   more pertinent information if based on
   more homogeneous job groups (Conway
   and Roberts 1994) and on structural
   equation models that test reciprocal causa-
   tion. Most important, if the aim is to
   guide policy, a framework far more com-
   plex than the dichotomous discrimination-
   or-not approach is required. The sociologi-
   cal arsenal of methods offers other prom-
   ising approaches. Research that traces the
   actual processes of institutional discrimina-
   tion is essential (e.g., Braddock and
   McPartland 1987, 1989). Also needed is
   attention to victims’ perceptions of dis-
   crimination (e.g., Feagin and Sikes 1994)
   and investigation of the changes generated
   by anti-discrimination efforts. Another ap-
   proach involves cross-national comparative
   research, which we consider below.

EFFECTIVE REMEDIAL INTERVENTIONS

Direct racial and gender discrimination in the
United States has declined in recent decades—
more slowly in the 1980s and 1990s than in the
1960s and 1970s. But what caused this decline?
Many factors were involved, but governmental
intervention was an important impetus. For exam-
ple, blacks in South Carolina made dramatic eco-
nomic gains in manufacturing during the late
1960s. Heckman and Payner (1989) demonstrated
that human capital, supply shifts, and tight labor

markets could not explain the sudden improve-

ments. It was federal anti-discrimination programs,

they concluded, that made a decisive contribution

to the gains.

More general assessments also show that anti-

discrimination legislation did reduce direct job

discrimination nationally (Burstein 1985). It did

not, however, eliminate the problem. Nor did such

laws effectively attack indirect discrimination. For

this more difficult problem, affirmative action pro-

grams were needed and have had some success

(Reskin 1998). The resistance to such programs,

however, underscores the difficulty of establishing

effective remedies for the more subtle forms of

discrimination.

DISCRIMINATION IN WESTERN EUROPE

Beyond racial and gender discrimination in the

United States, the same basic concerns and princi-

ples arise for other nations and targets. Discrimi-

nation against Western Europe’s new immigrant

minorities is pervasive (Castles 1984; MacEwen

1995; Pettigrew 1998). Both direct and indirect

discrimination are involved, though the indirect

forms are largely unrecognized in Europe.

Investigators have repeatedly uncovered di-

rect discrimination in England (Amin et al. 1988;

Daniel 1968; Gordon and Klug 1984; Smith 1976).

Controlled tests reveal the full litany of discrimina-

tory forms involving employment, public accom-

modations, housing, the courts, insurance, banks,

even car rentals. Employment discrimination pos-

es the most serious problem. In every European

Union nation, minorities have far higher unem-

ployment rates than the majority group. In 1990 in

the Netherlands, Moroccans and Turks had unem-

ployment rates above 40 percent compared with

the native Dutch rate of 13 percent (Pettigrew and

Meertens 1996). During the 1974–1977 recession,

West German manufacturing reduced its labor

force by 765,000—42 percent of whom were for-

eign workers (Castles 1984, p. 148).

As in the United States, there are many rea-

sons for minority unemployment disparities. The

‘‘last-in, first-out’’ principle selectively affects the

younger minority workers. Typically less skilled,

they are more affected by job upgrading. Minori-

ties also are more likely to be in older, declining