Double Jeopardy or Compensating Disadvantage? The Interaction Effect of Gender and Race on Earnings in the U.S
Emily Greenman,Yu Xie
2006-01-01
Abstract:There are sizeable earnings differentials by both gender and race in the U.S. labor market, with women earning less than men and most racial/ethnic minority groups earning less than whites. It has been proposed in the previous literature that the effects of gender and race on earnings are additive, so that minority women suffer the full disadvantage of each status. We test this proposition for a broad range of minority groups in the U.S. We find that women of all minority groups in the U.S. suffer a smaller gender penalty than white women. Exploring the potential role of racial variation in gender role specialization in producing such differentials, we find some empirical evidence suggesting that white families specialize more than families of most other races. Interaction of Race and Gender on Earnings 3 In the United States, two ascribed characteristics stand out for their strong association with labor force outcomes: gender and race/ethnicity. A large body of literature in both sociology and economics has been devoted to documenting the earnings differentials by gender and by race/ethnicity in the U.S. In general, such work has found (1) that women earn less than men, (2) that most racial/ethnic minority groups earn less than whites, and (3) that such differentials cannot be fully attributed to human capital factors (Corcoran and Duncan 1979). It thus follows that minority women are likely to face considerable, perhaps even severe, disadvantages in the labor market. Despite the significance of this topic and the enormous attention given to gender inequality and racial inequality in the past social science literature, our empirical knowledge of the differences in labor force outcomes by gender and race is surprisingly poor. Previous studies on the topic have mostly focused on either racial differences within a gender or gender differences within a race, and in doing so have overlooked the interplay between the two. This paper remedies this omission by providing a systematic, empirical investigation of earnings differentials by race and gender, with a new and less restrictive conceptualization of their effects. Double Jeopardy? In studies assessing the labor force outcomes of minority women, it is necessary to choose an appropriate reference group with which to compare them. One possibility is to compare female workers in a minority group to male workers in the same group (Mar 2000) the “gender-centered approach.” The gendercentered approach yields a difference by gender, commonly called the “gender effect” (within the group). Another possibility – the “race/ethnicity-centered approach” – is to compare female workers in a minority group to white female workers (e.g., Bound and Dresser 1999; Corcoran 1999; Mar 2000), which yields a difference that is commonly called the “race/ethnicity effect” (among women). While the two approaches have the appeal of not confounding race and gender, they preclude direct comparisons between minority women and white men, or indeed between any two groups that differ from one another in both race and gender. This limitation has given rise to two alternative practices in the literature. The first is to compare all gender-race combinations simultaneously to one reference group, usually white men (e.g., Corcoran and Duncan 1979; Farley 1984); the second is to understand the gender effects by race and then, sequentially, to understand the race effects by gender (e.g., Kilbourne, England, and Beron 1994). These alternative approaches are useful because they allow flexibility in empirical descriptions of earnings differentials by race/ethnicity and gender. This flexibility is preferable to either the gendercentered approach or the race/ethnicity centered approach because it avoids a strong assumption: additivity. Under the additivity assumption, minority women are assumed to incur two earnings disadvantages additively: one disadvantage associated with being female and another associated with being nonwhite. Thus, the total disadvantage faced by women in a minority group in comparison to white Interaction of Race and Gender on Earnings 4 men would simply be the sum of the gender penalty and the race penalty. This proposition, aptly called “double jeopardy” by King (1988, p.47), is implicitly invoked when researchers wish to extrapolate the theoretical implications of the effects of race/ethnicity or gender from studies that focus on only one or the other. However, the double jeopardy proposition is far too simplistic. If accepted uncritically, it implies that there is no real need for empirical research on the labor force outcomes of minority women. The additivity assumption would enable a researcher to predict the average earnings of minority women from the gender and race/ethnicity penalties that are estimated without using any data on minority women. In a study by Durden and Gaynor (1998), this strategy is spelled out this way (p.96): For purposes of this study the pure cost of being black or Hispanic is determined by male-male comparisons that is, the amount by which white male estimated earnings exceed those for black or Hispanic males. Pure gender cost is the amount by which white male estimated earnings exceed those of white females. If the additivity assumption is true, the penalty of being a minority woman is the sum of the race/ethnicity penalty and the gender penalty. Clearly, as empirical researchers have long realized (e.g., Corcoran and Duncan 1979), the additivity assumption is too strong. There is really no need to make such an assumption except for simplicity. Data on minority women should be, and have been, used in studies of labor force outcomes by gender and race/ethnicity. Still, many empirical researchers (such as Durden and Gaynor 1998) like to start from additivity as a convenient assumption and then check it against observed data. In this literature, double jeopardy is treated as a tentative proposition that provides a useful benchmark to assess deviations in empirical data. There is already a great deal of evidence that calls into question the “double jeopardy” characterization. The additivity assumption is problematic because it ignores the ways in which minority women’s experiences are unique, comparable neither to those of white women nor to those of men of the same race/ethnicity (King 1988). While minority women of most ethnicities are clearly disadvantaged, their earnings are often still higher than one might predict based on their race and gender alone. Among African Americans, many studies have shown that the earnings of black women are higher relative to white women than those of black men relative to white men (Blau and Beller 1988, 1992; Cancio, Evans, and Maume 1996; Carlson and Swartz 1988; King 1988; Marini 1989). While fewer studies have considered other races and ethnicities, several have uncovered a similar pattern among various Hispanic and/or Asian ethnic groups in relation to whites (Carlson and Swartz 1988; England, Christopher, and Reid 1999; Xie and Goyette 2004). To date, criticisms of the double jeopardy proposition have been both indirect and passive. They are indirect because empirical researchers often avoid the additivity assumption by empirically estimating variation in labor force outcomes by race/ethnicity and gender (i.e., Carlson and Swartz 1988; Weinberger Interaction of Race and Gender on Earnings 5 1998). They are also passive because, when their empirical results show clear deviations from the double jeopardy characterization, researchers pay very little attention to the underlying reasons for, and sometimes even fail to comment on, the apparent interactions between race and gender (e.g., Blau and Beller 1992). The interaction effects revealed in numerous studies in sociology and economics are often treated as no more than empirical nuances that are noted in passing. No attempt has been made to derive theoretical significance from these interactions. However, the interaction effects between race/ethnicity and gender actually convey information of theoretical interest that necessitates a direct and active approach. Our study is a first attempt in this direction.