Systemic Discrimination Among Large U.S. Employers
By Patrick M. Kline, Evan K. Rose, Christopher R. Walters. Social Science Research Network, 2021
183 citations recorded by the source corpus.
We study the results of a massive nationwide correspondence experiment sending more than 83,000 fictitious applications with randomized characteristics to geographically dispersed jobs posted by 108 of the largest U.S. employers. Distinctively Black names reduce the probability of employer contact by 2.1 percentage points relative to distinctively white names. The magnitude of this racial gap in contact rates differs substantially across firms, exhibiting a between-company standard deviation of 1.9 percentage points. Despite an insignificant average gap in contact rates between male and female applicants, we find a between-company standard deviation in gender contact gaps of 2.7 percentage points, revealing that some firms favor male applicants while others favor women. Company-specific racial contact gaps are temporally and spatially persistent, and negatively correlated with firm profitability, federal contractor status, and a measure of recruiting centralization. Discrimination exhibits little geographical dispersion, but two digit industry explains roughly half of the cross-firm variation in both racial and gender contact gaps. Contact gaps are highly concentrated in particular companies, with firms in the top quintile of racial discrimination responsible for nearly half of lost contacts to Black applicants in the experiment. Controlling false discovery rates to the 5% level, 23 individual companies are found to discriminate against Black applicants. Our findings establish that systemic illegal discrimination is concentrated among a select set of large employers, many of which can be identified with high confidence using large scale inference methods.
Subfields: Gender Studies, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d18a96810e0a006ae78415c75a5b3ac9465d0113
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Gender Studies
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- Coarse race data conceals disparities in clinical risk score performance (2023, result): “While we document this pitfall for clinical risk scores, our findings also have implications for the many other settings where coarse categories have been used to study inequality and algorithmic bias (Chetty et al., 2020; Goel et al., 2016; Franchi et al., 2023; Rho et al., 2023; Kleinberg et al., ”