NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES ASSESSING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

By Harry J. Holzer, David Neumark, Scott Adams, Heather L. Bednarek, Richard Attiyeh, Timothy Bates, E. Cohn, Sandy Darity, Kevin Lang, J. Mcmillan and 4 more. 1999

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

On formalizing fairness in prediction with machine learning (2017, background): “For the second claim, Holzer and Neumark (23) conclude on the basis of several studies that “the empirical case against Affirmative Action on the grounds of efficiency is weak at best”.”
The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations (2017, background): “This is likely to raise their relative wages, since the authors find that such firms are higher paying and, in addition, have smaller race and sex differences in wages (see also Holzer and Neumark 2000a for a review).”
Optimal Contracting with Subjective Evaluation (2003, unknown): “However, as Holzer and Neumark (2000) observe, improving the measure of skill can lower the amount of measured discrimination.”
Affirmative Action and Productivity in the Indian Railways (2016, background): “A comprehensive survey of those studies – by Holzer and Neumark (2000) concluded that BThere is some evidence of lower qualifications for minorities hired under affirmative action programs…^ but that BEvidence of lower performance among these minorities appears much less consistently or…”
How Costly Is Diversity? Affirmative Action in Light of Gender Differences in Competitiveness (2013, background): “1 For a survey on the literature, see Holzer and Neumark (2000).”