In recent decades, it has become clear that the major economic, political, and social problems in the world require contemporary development research to examine…
In recent decades, it has become clear that the major economic, political, and social problems in the world require contemporary development research to examine intersections of race and class in the global economy. Theorists in the Black Radical Tradition (BRT) were the first to develop and advance a powerful research agenda that integrated race–class analyses of capitalist development. However, over time, progressive waves of research streams in development studies have successively stripped these concepts from their analyses. Post-1950s, class analyses of development overlapped with some important features of the BRT, but removed race. Post-1990s, ethnicity-based analyses of development excised both race and class. In this chapter, I discuss what we learn about capitalist development using the integrated race–class analyses of the BRT, and how jettisoning these concepts weakens our understanding of the political economy of development. To remedy our current knowledge gaps, I call for applying insights of the BRT to our analyses of the development trajectories of nations.
Social class has long existed in tension with other forms of social difference such as race, gender, and sexuality, both in academic and popular debate. While…
Social class has long existed in tension with other forms of social difference such as race, gender, and sexuality, both in academic and popular debate. While Marxist-influenced class primacy perspectives gained prominence in US sociology in the 1970s, they faded from view by the 1990s, replaced by perspectives focusing on culture and institutions or on intersectional analyses of how multiple forms of social difference shape durable patterns of disempowerment and marginalization. More recently, class and capitalism have reasserted their place on the academic agenda, but continue to coexist uneasily with analyses of oppression and social difference. Here we discuss possibilities for bridging the gap between studies of class and other forms of social difference. We contend that these categories are best understood in relation to each other when situated in a larger system with its own endogenous dynamics and tendencies, namely capitalism. After providing an historical account of the fraught relationship between studies of class and other forms of social difference, we propose a theoretical model for integrating understandings of class and social difference using Wright et al.‘s concept of dynamic asymmetry. This shifts us away from discussions of which factors are most important in general toward concrete discussions of how these factors interact in particular cases and processes. We contend that class and other forms of social difference should not be studied primarily as traits embodied in individuals, but rather with respect to how these differences are organized in relation to each other within a framework shaped by the dynamics of capitalist development.
This chapter examines how deregulatory fiscal policies undermined federal legislation intended to reduce racial and economic inequality through measures that included wider access to home loans among minority populations. We focus specifically on structural tensions that existed between fostering the goals of economic and racial equality within a political structure that also serves the needs of finance capitalism. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), typically considered a triggering point for the financial meltdown by conservative commentators, was passed to address racial and economic inequalities, yet financial deregulation and the growth of the subprime mortgage industry ended up completely subverting these goals. The unprecedented growth and evolution of the subprime mortgage industry that occurred largely outside of the law's reach helped minorities and other economically disadvantaged groups enter into the housing market. However, a crime-facilitative environment brought on by inadequate regulation resulted in a significant degree of fraud by lenders. While this expanded homeownership among minorities, it eventually pushed them into default and brought chaos to the entire U.S. economy. This chapter details how the collapse of the subprime industry disproportionately impacted minority populations, and exposes how deregulatory policies subverted the effectiveness and reach of the FHA and CRA. The history of the CRA provides a clear example of the contradictory tensions within the U.S. legal system that espouses equality yet ultimately fails those it was designed to help as a consequence of unfettered capitalism.
This chapter argues that the dead are stakeholders and that they should be regarded as such. In making that argument I will be exploring the claims of the philosopher Bob Brecher (2002) that we have real obligations to the dead because they made us what we are, if they were a part of our community. Indeed, Brecher (2002) argues that the dead never ceased ‘to be members of a particular community’ and therefore ‘the dead can be said to have interests’. This chapter explores the validity of their interests as stakeholders. Indeed, I argue that if they are not regarded as stakeholders, corporate management will overlook their interests. Admittedly, corporate managers might seem mindful of their interests. However, if they are not conceived of as stakeholders, such managers will not be primarily concerned with their interests, but with how other stakeholders might perceive those interests. In attempting to satisfy these other stakeholders’ perceptions of those interests, the actual interests of the dead could be overlooked. But that relies on the dead being legitimate stakeholders. To substantiate that status I therefore argue in this chapter that the dead are stakeholders, but also that their status as a stakeholder now that they are dead is dependent on their behaviour when they were alive, given Brecher's (2002) insistence as to them being a part of that community.
In arguing this, I utilize a recent article by Rosenbloom and Althaus (2010). I argue that the interest of the dead they mention in their article would best be served if they are considered as stakeholders. Indeed, that because Rosenbloom and Althaus (2010) do not consider those dead as stakeholders, their interests are never considered. I acknowledge though that being stakeholders relies on them remaining a part of that community (Brecher, 2002), which I argue they were a part of. If they do not remain a part of that community, I cannot argue that they are stakeholders. I therefore consider a historical argument which if accepted would prove that the dead which Rosenbloom and Althaus (2010) consider had not remained a part of that community and therefore cannot be accepted as stakeholders. This chapter rigorously examines the validity of that historical argument as to the behaviour of those dead when they were living, and whether their behaviour negates any claims as to them being stakeholders. This chapter completely refutes any arguments as to these dead being involved in such activities which would have removed them from their community and thus from being stakeholders. It furthermore argues that successfully rebutting such arguments is essential to my argument that the dead I am considering are stakeholders.