Citation
Fosu, A. (2000). Antidiscrimination measures of the 1960s and occupational mobility: Evidence for black American men. Journal of Labor Research, 21(1), 169-180.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to assess the effect of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the occupational status of African American men in the United States.
- Using labor force statistics derived from the Current Population Survey and other sources, the author used an interrupted time series design to estimate the occupational status of black men relative to white men from 1958 to 1981, specifically focusing on differences after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- The study found a positive trend in the occupational status of African American men relative to white men over the entire 1958–1981 period and a larger positive trend for years after 1964. The author estimated that about half of the rise in relative earnings for African American men from 1964 to 1981 could be attributed to increased occupational status.
- The quality of causal evidence provided in this study is low because the author examined only one demonstration of the intervention. This means that we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Features of the Intervention
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are forbidden from discriminating against their employees on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. The law prohibits discrimination in terms, compensation, working conditions, and other aspects of employment; mandates enforcement by courts rather than juries; and provides civil penalties for violations, including mandatory remedial hiring policies for employers and reinstatement with back pay for victims. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to bring class action litigation against employers for discrimination. The Civil Rights Act initially applied to private sector employers with more than 25 employees; since 1972, it has applied to those with more than 15 employees.
Features of the Study
The author used an interrupted time series design to estimate the effect of time on the occupational status of African American men relative to white men from 1958 to 1981, specifically comparing outcomes before and after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Annual data came from several sources, including the Current Population Survey and U.S. Census. Occupational status was measured by the share of African American men in high-wage occupations: specifically, a relative index of the distribution of African American to white men across 11 exhaustive occupational categories weighted by median earnings for the occupations. The fully specified model included an overall time trend, a post-1964 time trend, and controls for average national economic conditions and relative African American–white schooling, employment, and population. In addition, the author estimated the extent to which changes in the earnings of African American men relative to white men could be attributed to occupational status by regressing a measure of relative earnings on occupational status, controlling for a time trend, cyclical economic conditions, relative human capital, and relative civilian employment.
Findings
- The study found a significant positive trend in relative African American occupational status in the post-1964 era, compared with the 1958–1964 era. The proportion of African American men in higher-status occupations relative to white men increased an average of 0.5 percent per year from 1965 to 1981.
- The author attributed about half of the increase in earnings for African American men from 1965 to 1981 to increases in the occupational status index.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The author compared the outcomes of African American and white men measured before and after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. CLEAR’s guidelines require that authors study multiple demonstrations of the same intervention in an interrupted time series analysis, in order to limit the chances that changes in outcomes reflect some other factor that changed at the time of the intervention. Because the Civil Rights Act was implemented on the national level, there was only one demonstration of the intervention, and we cannot be confident that the estimated effect was due solely to this legislation. This is an inherent limitation of using an interrupted time series analysis to study the effects of a national policy change.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence provided in this study is low because the author examined only one demonstration of the intervention. This means that we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Other factors are likely to have contributed.