Search results

This paper explores the wages of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American and “other race” women and men once differences in basic characteristics among these 12 groups are accounted for. The authors aim to extend comparisons beyond those of women and men of the same race or the various races within a given gender.

To undertake the conditional analysis, first, the authors propose a simple re-weighing scheme that allows to build a counterfactual economy in which workers' attributes for all gender–race/ethnicity groups are the same. Second, the authors use a well-known re-weighting scheme that involves logit estimations.

Only Hispanic men, Native American men and Asian women have conditional wages around average. Black men and, especially, White, Black, Hispanic, Native American and “other race” women have conditional wages clearly below average, whereas those of Asian and White men are well above average. The wage differential between a privileged and a deprived group is disentangled into the premium of the former and the penalty of the latter, which brings a new perspective to what has been done in the literature based on pairwise comparisons. In this intersectional framework, the authors document that gender penalizes more than race.

This paper examines intergroup earnings differentials using a methodology that allows to examine 12 gender–race/ethnicity groups jointly, which is this work's distinctive feature. The authors' intersectional framework allows to picture the effect of gender and race/ethnicity more broadly than what the literature has shown thus far.

This paper introduces a unit-consistent Lorenz dominance criterion that allows ranking income distributions according to centrist measures à la Seidl and Pfingsten (1997). In doing so, it defines α-Lorenz curves that generalize the absolute Lorenz curve. These curves allow implementing unanimous rankings for a broad set of centrist inequality notions, whereas they become closer and closer to the absolute curve when α approaches equity. In addition, this paper provides an empirical illustration of these tools using Australian income data. The results suggest that despite the reduction of relative inequality for Australian-born people between 1999 and 2003, their inequality increased for most centrist value judgments.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of several intermediate inequality measures, paying special attention to the unit-consistency axiom proposed by Zheng (2007). First, we demonstrate why one of the most referenced intermediate indices, proposed by Bossert and Pfingsten (1990), is not unit-consistent. Second, we explain why the invariance criterion proposed by Del Río and Ruiz-Castillo (2000), recently generalized by Del Río and Alonso-Villar (2008), leads instead to inequality measures that are unaffected by the currency unit. Third, we show that the intermediate measures proposed by Kolm (1976) may also violate unit-consistency. Finally, we reflect on the concept of intermediateness behind the above notions together with that proposed by Krtscha (1994). Special attention is paid to the geometric interpretations of our results.

This paper defines local segregation measures that are sensitive to status differences among organizational units. So far as we know, this is the first time that status-sensitive segregation measures have been offered in a multigroup context with a cardinal measure of status. These measures allow researchers to aggregate employment gaps of a target group by penalizing its concentration in low-status occupations. They are intended to complement rather than substitute for previous local segregation measures. The usefulness of these tools is illustrated in the case of occupational segregation by race and ethnicity in the United States.

It is our pleasure as editors to dedicate Research on Economic Inequality, Volume 20 to Professor Jacques Silber. Jacques is a long-time friend of the series and has kindly functioned as a mentor and advisor to us.