Can public employment still reduce racial inequality — or has it begun to mirror the very labor market disparities it once countered?

Abstract Public-sector reforms over the last three decades have fundamentally changed working conditions in almost all OECD countries. This chapter compares the consequences for public-sector workers in the US, where reforms took hold in the 1980s, and Germany, where reforms began unfolding in the 1990s and early 2000s. After a short description of the pre-reform and post-reform structure of the public-sector work in these two poignant cases, we investigate the consequences for public-sector job security and pressure across countries and over time. Our analyses of part-time work, contractual protections, and overtime hours draw on data of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) and the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP). Results show a remarkable and nearly parallel shift from full to part-time work in both countries in the last 30 years, albeit time-delayed in the case of Germany. Contractual insecurity measured by at-will (US) and fixed-term (Germany) contracts increased in both countries, with somewhat steeper increases in the US. The share of public-sector workers working overtime hours has increased, again in nearly parallel fashion, in the US and Germany since the mid-1990s owing to public-sector reforms. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of such changes and future trajectories.

Abstract:Classic theory has long been interested in mobility, but with limited attention to the implications of intergenerational movement for inequality-specific beliefs. In this article, we introduce a dynamic conception and modeling of the impact of intergenerational occupational mobility on inequality orientations generally and distributive and redistributive beliefs in particular. The diagonal models we employ using 2008–2010 General Social Survey samples—modeling that considers intergenerational occupational origin and destination, and that is replicated on a larger sample across three waves of the GSS—reveal strong conservatizing effects of mobility overall. Those who occupationally fall relative to their parents, although somewhat more progressive by virtue of the downward mobility experience, tend to cling more so to the conservative beliefs characteristic of their higher status origins. Those experiencing mobility gains, in contrast, usually adopt the more conservative orientations of those who they are now surrounded by and in ways that legitimize individual efforts. These patterns are notably pronounced compared to other aspects of one's job, political affiliation, and status-related attributes; are somewhat stronger among men than women; and differ significantly for Blacks. We elaborate and conclude by highlighting the need for a mobility-centered corrective to sociological understandings of inequality beliefs and how workplace-related experiences in particular shape ideological leanings.

Abstract A recurring theme in popular media accounts of office work has been the office of the future’, in which an unconventional decor and ‘fun’ working environment allegedly reflects and supports the creative and knowledge-based work of employees. In this chapter this vision, with its implication of a paradigm shift from the routine ‘9–5’ office work stereotype, is held up to scrutiny by first looking at the scale and variety of work done in offices and then examining key dimensions of job quality in office work and assessing the evidence from contemporary research. The chapter takes the historical trends in the nature of office work, observed for over a century, such as routinization of work, mechanization and the diffusion of office technology, intensification of work and enhanced managerial control and a lowering of status (the ‘proletarianization’ thesis) and examines, in the context of current economic pressures, the degree to which the contemporary ‘creative’ office offers a radical break from such trends or whether, for most office workers, the experience is a continuation and even an acceleration, of such processes.

A sufficient body of research across disciplines (Sociology, Political Science, Public Administration) now exists to address the evolving dynamics of public sector African American/White socio-economic inequality across the post1965 civil rights era. This review synthesizes this research, bringing together an unprecedented amount of evidence to support two primary points: (1) Public sector inequality has been fluid, that is, it has been characterized by varying levels of African American disadvantage. Though African American disadvantage has progressively increased in the post-1990 period, for now it retains its occupational niche status, and (2) The underpinnings of this fluidity of African American/White inequality are to a considerable degree a product of historically specific responses to inequality dynamics in the private sector that I classify as either compensatory or emulative. I discuss the importance of focusing on inter-sectoral connections in understanding evolving racial inequality in the public sector and conclude by offering directions for future research.

This study reviews and critiques the growing body of sociological research that has dramatically increased our understanding of the dynamics of African American disadvantage in access to managerial positions across the post-1990 period. This literature, first, identifies both the burdensome barriers to entry faced by African Americans (e.g., a relatively narrow and formalistic route to management which is pronounced in the private sector) and how equal employment opportunity (EEO) directives may reduce them. Second, it establishes that African Americans face more difficulties retaining positions than Whites (e.g., process of downward movement is broad and generalized and is pronounced in the private sector) and formal EEO policy governing the process of downward movement often institutionalizes racial inequalities. Nevertheless, both richer/more definitive empirical insights and theoretical development on this topic remains elusive because of two fundamental shortcomings discussed as follows: (1) the nature and consequences of severe data/evidentiary limitations, and (2) limitations in the scope/breadth of issues examined.

The burgeoning sociological literature on African American/White men's downward mobility has failed to examine dynamics at the working-class level and has not conducted analyses at the refined job level. Within the context of the minority vulnerability thesis, we address these shortcomings, and specifically utilizing data from the 2011-2015 waves of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we examine racial difference in the incidence, determinants, and timing of downward mobility from two working-class job types, elite blue collar and rank-and-file jobs. Findings our expectation of ongoing, contemporary vulnerability: from both working-class origins, African Americans relative to Whites experience higher rates of downward mobility, experience it on a broad basis that is not explained by traditional stratification-based causal factors (e.g., human capital and job/labor market characteristics) and experience downward mobility more quickly. Further, these racial inequalities are pronounced at the elite blue-collar level, probably because of heightened practices of social closure when supervisory responsibility is at stake. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for understanding both the ongoing and future socioeconomic well-being of African Americans in the US.

Because U.S. states are meaningful polities with differing cultures and institutions, they are important locations for the struggles for resources. Yet there have been surprisingly few studies of how state-level cleavages and institutions shape the pattern of income inequality, especially by race. This article matches individual-level data on income and its determinants (from the Current Population Survey) to state-level measures (mostly from Census data) of varying demographic, power, and institutional configurations. A multilevel model of the racial pay gap is estimated showing that racial income inequality increases with the size of the minority population in the state but decreases with the rate of filing racial discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The index of labor market power (a scaled index of union density and the size of the public sector) increases pay across the board but does not reduce racial income inequality. The findings suggest that recent and current neoliberal efforts across states to shrink government, limit unions, and abandon enforcement of antidiscrimination will lower wages for all workers and exacerbate racial income inequality.

We assess whether the "particularistic mobility thesis", the predominant theory used to explain African American/White differences in mobility dynamics into occupationally privileged positions in the American labor market is applicable across a greater range of occupational destinations than previously considered, and, if so, whether it captures a racialized "glass ceiling". Findings from a 2009-2014 Panel Study of Income Dynamics sample of men support broadening the scope of theory. Specifically, across four white-collar and blue-collar privileged destinations, African Americans, relative to, Whites, have low rates of mobility and are restricted to relying on a circumscribed and formal mobility route that is structured by a traditional range of stratification-based causal factors, i.e., background socio-economic status, human capital and job/labor market characteristics. In addition, a racialized glass ceiling in mobility prospects emerges across destinations based on two criteria-income and supervisory authority. We discuss how the application of theory in this broader context enhances our understanding of race-based access to occupational privilege in contemporary America and sheds light on the immediate and longer-term patterns of racial stratification in the American labor market.

The sociological study of authority (i.e., legitimate workplace control of human and organizational resources) is rooted in early theoretical debates surrounding the conceptualization of stratification and social class position. Such debates around conceptualization naturally led to disagreements over the manner in which authority should be measured (qualitative categories versus quantitative scales) for empirical assessment of social inequality. Thus, this field of sociological inquiry is about measuring positions in the workplace, the processes leading to those positions, and the consequences of those positions for workplace rewards. In addition to theory and measurement, the emergence of authority research includes studies of gender, race, and ethnic differences in the factors that determine authority and in the consequences of authority for various workplace outcomes. As multiracial/ethnic samples became available, researchers focused on the manner in which gender intersected with race/ethnicity to forge differential authority outcomes for men and women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Studies here underscore the fact that job authority remains unevenly distributed nationally (race/ethnicity, gender), and cross-nationally (gender), and authority gaps have remained robust over time. Authority studies employ a variety of data from the United States and Europe, regions that dominate quantitative assessments of authority inequality, but recent data from Israel and Korea foreshadow the extension of these inquiries to less traditional locales, thereby expanding our understanding of group differences and similarities in authority attainment more globally.

The sociological literature on workplace inequality has been relatively clear regarding racial disparities and ongoing vulnerabilities to contemporary structural and employer biases. We still know little, however, about the consequences of age and ageism for minority workers and susceptibilities to downward mobility. Coupling insights regarding race with recent work on employment-based age discrimination, we interrogate in this article African Americans and Whites, aged 55 and older, and the extent to which they experience job loss across time. Our analyses, beyond controlling for key background attributes, distinguish and disaggregate patterns for higher and lower level status managers and professionals and for men and women. Results, derived from data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, reveal unique and significant inequalities. Relative to their White and gender specific counterparts, older African American men and women experience notably higher rates of downward mobility—downward mobility that is not explained by conventional explanations (i.e., human capital credentials, job/labor market characteristics, etc.). Such inequalities are especially pronounced among men and for those initially occupying higher status white-collar managerial and professional jobs compared to technical/skilled professional and blue-collar “first line” supervisors. We tie our results to contemporary concerns regarding ageism in the workplace as well as minority vulnerability. We also suggest an ageism-centered corrective to existing race and labor market scholarship.

Abstract Trends and causes of downward mobility in the United States are discussed in general terms and along race and gender lines. Rates have been rising in the post‐2000 period, and structural causes such as deindustrialization and globalization, as well as dynamics associated with healthcare costs, marital status, and evolving human capital requirements, are identified as the culprits. Relatively high rates of downward mobility based on minority and gender status are also explained by continuing discrimination in the labor market.

Within the context of the “particularistic mobility thesis” we examine African American/White differences in the incidence, determinants and timing of mobility into management at a refined level, namely, when groups share similar “rank and file” and “elite blue collar” working class jobs. Findings from a Panel Study of Income Dynamics sample of men support theory and indicate that from both job categories, African Americans, relative to Whites, have lower rates of mobility, reach management through a route that is relatively formal and structured by a traditional range of stratification-based causal factors and take longer to reach management. Further, as predicted by theory, racial disadvantage experienced by African Americans are greater among those tracked from rank and file than elite blue collar jobs. Discussed are implications of the findings for understanding African American disadvantage in the American labor market on both an intra-and inter-generational basis.

Whether the public sector continues to offer African Americans an upwardly mobile “occupational niche” is unclear, especially in the face of contemporary reforms that run counter to workplace protections. In this article, and drawing on overtime data from Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we explore this question with a specific focus on the upward mobility of men into white-collar occupations. Findings suggest that the reform period of 2005–2010, characterized by increased employer discretion and an application of a “business model” to public sector work, undermined African American relative to White promotion prospects. What was once greater racial parity in the incidence, determinants, and timing of upward mobility during the pre-reform period (1985–1990) eroded during the reform period (2005–2010). Promotion-centered inequalities in the private sector, in contrast, while high, were more or less constant across the same time period. We conclude by discussing escalating public sector racial disadvantages, the processes undergirding them, and their implications for the likely contraction of the African American middle class.

In this article, we offer an overview and critical assessment of recent changes wrought by "new governance" reforms within public sector work, highlighting the implications specifically for Black-White inequality, and denote where further sociological analyses are warranted. These foci are important given the widely accepted-though hardly comprehensively examined-assumption that public sector employment remains a favorable "economic niche" for African Americans. Recent sociological research, including our own, suggests that this is likely no longer the case. The very structure and functioning of public sector work have changed owing to neoliberal agendas and reforms toward privatization over the last two decades, becoming less bureaucratic and increasingly mirroring processes and inequalities more traditionally characteristic of the private sector. We emphasize the consequences particularly for African Americans and call for deeper sociological analyses of public sector racial inequalities, processes, and their consequences.

Abstract Has the adoption of “new governance” reforms over the last two decades eroded the public sector as a long-standing occupational niche for African Americans? Utilizing data from the General Social Survey, we address this issue in the context of earnings “returns” to three levels of job authority for African American men and women relative to their White counterparts. Findings, derived from analyses of three waves of the General Social Survey, indicate that the acceleration of this “business model” of work organization in the public sector has had relatively profound and negative consequences for African American income. Specifically, racial parity in earnings returns at all levels of authority in the “pre-reform” period (1992–1994) progressively eroded during “early reform” (2000–2002) and then even more so during the “late reform” (2010–2012) period. Much of this growing public sector disadvantage—a disadvantage that is approaching that seen in the private sector—is driven largely by income gaps between White and African American men, although a similar (though smaller) racial gap is witnessed among women. We conclude by discussing the occupational niche status of public sector work for African Americans, calling for further analyses of the growing inequality patterns identified in our analyses, and drawing attention to the implications for contemporary racial disadvantages.

Little sociological attention over the last two decades has focused on the deprivation experienced by indigenous people. Fusing insights from American Indian history and the race and labor market inequality literatures, we address this gap in this article through a historically informed labor market analysis of povertyan analysis that considers the pervasiveness of contemporary Native poverty, its potential basis in labor market opportunities, and the extent to which it has been patterned by two major demographic and economic shifts: (1) the rapid urbanization of the American Indian population and (2) the proliferation of tribally owned casinos. Findings reveal, most notably, the incredibly rigid and durable character of poverty for this population, historically and currently and across geographic space, and with little overall impact of local labor market opportunity. The presence of tribal casinos reduces such poverty, but only to a small degree and not nearly enough to compensate for sizable American Indian and white poverty differentials. Group history is key, we conclude, to shaping how space, labor markets, and economic development reduce or buttress relations of inequality.