Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T08:16:55.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Double Bind: The Politics of Racial and Class Inequalities in the Americas Executive Summary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2017

Juliet Hooker
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Alvin B. Tillery Jr.
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Business
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2017 

This report summarizes the work of the American Political Science Association’s Presidential Task Force on Racial and Class Inequalities in the Americas. The main goal of the task force was to investigate the relationship between race and class in producing material, political, and social inequalities in the nations of the Americas. The task force also examined how the political systems in these countries work to foment and/or ameliorate inequalities that track with ethnic and racial identities and socioeconomic status.

Clearly, enormous diversity exists among the 55 nations of the Americas (see Appendix I). At the same time, a sizable majority of these nations share features that make them ripe for comparative analyses along the dimensions of inquiry suggested here: inequality, particularly as it relates to race and class. All of these nations were founded on a history of European imperialism and settler colonialism that ravaged indigenous populations beginning in the fifteenth century (Jennings Reference Jennings1975; Todorov Reference Todorov1984). The majority of these nations also participated in the transatlantic slave trade that brought upwards of 12 million Africans to the western hemisphere between 1525 and 1866 (Eltis Reference Eltis2000; Eltis and Richardson Reference Eltis and Richardson2010). Both the early economic growth of these nations and the expansion of their European populations through immigration are traceable to their participation in the transatlantic slave trade and the exploitation of African labor during their colonial eras (Drescher Reference Drescher1977; Eltis Reference Eltis1987; Williams Reference Williams1944). At some point in their histories, almost all of the nations of the Americas have used ethnic and racial differences and/or socioeconomic status to confer citizenship rights on an unequal basis (Andrews Reference Andrews2004; Telles et al. Reference Telles2014). By the end of the twentieth century, nearly all of these nations had experienced some form of democratic transition that, in name at least, institutionalized the principle of equal citizenship. At the same time, many nations in the hemisphere had implemented various types of social welfare and poverty-reduction programs, as well as (in some cases) public policies aimed at reducing racial and ethnic disparities. Despite these changes in conferring citizenship status and legal rights, widespread disparities remain on most indicators of socioeconomic wellbeing, service provision, basic safety, and political influence along racial, ethnic, and class lines. The chapters in this report document these gaps and explore the causes of their persistence.

The work of the task force unfolded in a period in which political science has begun to pay greater attention to the causes and consequences of various forms of inequality (Bartels Reference Bartels2009; Chalmers et al. Reference Chalmers, Vilas, Hite, Martin, Piester and Segarra2003; Gilens Reference Gilens2013; Jacobs and Skocpol Reference Jacobs and Skocpol2005). To some extent, political science has lagged behind cognate fields of history, economics, and sociology in terms of scholarly attentiveness to inequality. The recent literature on inequality in political science, however, has focused almost exclusively on rising income inequality and how it affects political representation. The long-standing gaps in the life chances of whites and communities of color in the nations of the Americas have been largely unexplored. At the same time, in Latin America, which had long denied the existence of a relationship between race and ethnicity and class disparities, there has been an explosion in data-gathering on race and ethnicity and in particular on the relationship between race and inequality (see, for example, Telles et al. Reference Telles2014). The chapters developed by the task force members have explicitly sought to grapple with both the problem of rising socioeconomic inequality and the multifaceted racial gaps that exist throughout the Americas. Moreover, most of the chapters examine the ways in which race and class inequalities are epiphenomena of politics. Thus, the chapters are organized around several core concepts and theoretical insights that animate research programs in political science—e.g., the role of institutions; the mobilizing power of group memberships; party politics; and social movements.

The chapters in this report make several contributions to our understanding of racial and class inequalities in the Americas. First, the contributors share a broad agreement that the class and race inequalities that persist in the Americas are deeply rooted historically. They also agree that racial and class inequalities in the hemisphere are typically mutually constitutive. In other words, the disparities in the socioeconomic indicators that governments and social scientists often use to evaluate the life chances of individuals—e.g., income, wealth, and access to basic services—tend to map onto racially demarcated group boundaries in the Americas. The contributors also demonstrate that a multiplicity of strategies to combat racial and class inequalities have emerged in the Americas over the past 30 years and achieved varying degrees of success. In short, no regional model for combating race and class inequalities rivals the regional pacts on trade and clean energy that many of these nations began to embrace in the early 2000s. In addition, many of the contributors identify important gaps in the way political science has traditionally approached the study of these questions. In particular, some of the task force contributors suggest that analyses of inequality in political science focus only on certain dimensions of state action (such as political behavior or voting) while ignoring others where the bulk of citizens, particularly communities of color, experience key disparities shaped by race and class, such as the welfare state, the criminal justice system, and the provision of public goods and services. Many of the contributors also raise questions about the type of data that is available on racial and class disparities, which varies significantly across the Americas, and which shapes the kinds of questions scholars are able to answer.

THE STATE, RACIAL CLASSIFICATION, AND SOCIAL WELFARE

The important role played by states in shaping political and economic life in modern nations has come into greater focus within political science since the middle decades of the twentieth century (Geddes Reference Geddes1994; Simon 1965; Evans et al. Reference Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol1985). For scholars interested in the study of the relationship between politics and the socioeconomic and racial inequalities that exist in the Americas, two dimensions of state action have garnered considerable attention in the literature. First, the role that administrative states play in sorting human beings into categories for the distribution of citizenship rights, governmental benefits, and labor market opportunities is pivotal (Katznelson Reference Katznelson2005; Kim Reference Kim1999; Lieberman Reference Lieberman2001; Marx Reference Marx1998; Omi and Winant Reference Omi and Winant1994; Smith Reference Smith1997; Williams Reference Williams2003). The second dimension is the overall design and performance of the welfare programs aimed at reducing inequalities (Esping-Andersen Reference Esping-Andersen1990; Hacker Reference Hacker2002; Hacker Reference Hacker2008). The task force members devote serious consideration to both of these issues.

. . . hierarchies established in the colonial eras of most of these nations—which privileged those of European descent over indigenous populations, African slaves, and nonwhite immigrants—continue to cast a long shadow over the life chances of people of color in the western hemisphere.

There was broad consensus within the task force that the ethnoracial hierarchies established in the colonial eras of most of these nations—which privileged those of European descent over indigenous populations, African slaves, and nonwhite immigrants—continue to cast a long shadow over the life chances of people of color in the western hemisphere. For example, Guillermo Trejo’s and Melina Altamirano’s chapter, “The Mexican Color Hierarchy: How Race and Skin Tone Still Define Life Chances 200 Years after Independence,” shows that indigenous populations and mestizos with indigenous phenotypical features continue to experience the harshest levels of social and economic discrimination in Mexico. Trejo’s and Altamirano’s findings are sobering because they show that dark-brown Mexicans with indigenous features systematically report to have less access to private and public goods and services than white Mexicans and that these forms of discrimination persist at all levels of education and income. Michael Dawson’s and Megan Francis’s chapter, “Black Blues: The Persistence of Racialized Economic Inequality in Black Communities,” also draws a bright yellow line connecting the socioeconomic inequalities and depredations that African Americans experience in the “Age of Obama” to their historical status as a subordinate group in America’s racial hierarchy. Thus, as scholars of wealth acquisition and educational attainment in economics have highlighted recently (Oliver and Shapiro Reference Oliver and Shapiro2006; Shapiro Reference Shapiro2003), intergenerational effects undoubtedly play some role in structuring the inequalities experienced by ethnoracial minorities in the Americas.

Jane Junn and Taeku Lee explore the ways in which Asian Americans continue to suffer from racist constructions of their panethnic and subgroup identities in their chapter, “Asians in the Americas.” They discuss how the social meanings attached to the category “Asian” have shifted in the United States from a designation that foreclosed opportunities for full citizenship to a valorized position of a “model minority” within the racial order. Despite this valorization, Junn and Lee point out that Asian Americans continue to face discrimination and underrepresentation in a number of fields in American life. These empirical realities debunk arguments that portray racial gaps between whites and people of color in the United States as simply epiphenomena of socioeconomic status. Finally, Junn and Lee show how the “model minority” narrative obscures the rampant inequalities that exist between different ethnic subgroups.

Task force members, however, are less certain about the extent to which these modern inequalities are the path-dependent effects of the establishment of racial classifications and hierarchies in the founding moments of the 55 nations. Evidence from the United States—which had the most well-developed and punitive legal regimes governing group position in the Americas—clearly illustrates that race over-determined class status for the groups clustered at the bottom of the social hierarchy until at least the middle of the twentieth century (Allen and Farley Reference Allen and Farley1986; Willie Reference Willie1978; Willie Reference Willie1989; Wilson Reference Wilson1978, 1–62). By contrast, racial categorization was more fluid in Latin America, even as racial hierarchies continued to exist (Hernández Reference Hernández2012; Telles Reference Telles2004; Wade Reference Wade1997). The literature on Latin America suggests that even during the height of the slave system in nations like Brazil and Colombia, opportunities for class mobility, while extremely difficult, were not completely restricted (Andrews Reference Andrews2004; de la Fuente Reference de la Fuente2001).

Nonetheless, as Mara Loveman’s chapter, “New Data, New Knowledge, New Politics: Race, Color, and Class Inequality in Latin America,” describes, newly available data reveal clear evidence of racial, ethnic, and color stratification throughout Latin America today. In many countries in the region, the very existence of these data represents a major political development, breaking with decades of official refusals to collect ethnic or racial statistics in national surveys. Social scientists are using these new data to produce a steady stream of research documenting significant inequalities by race and color. The new data are not only producing new knowledge; they are also producing new sites and stakes of political struggle over recognition, rights, and redress.

Mala Htun’s chapter, “Emergence of an Organized Politics of Race in Latin America,” raises concerns about the new politics of race in Latin America. She discusses potential unintended consequences of the push by Afro-descendant and indigenous groups in Brazil and Colombia to force the state to recognize (and affirmatively redress, via targeted policies) the connections between the material inequalities that shape their daily lives in the present, and the ethnoracial hierarchies that were constructed in the colonial and post-independence eras. For both Htun and Loveman, these moves portend the rise of white backlash movements in these countries and threaten important race-neutral efforts to address poverty that have recently swept through Latin America (Hall Reference Hall2006; Lomeli Reference Lomeli2008; Soares et al. Reference Soares, Ribas and Osorio2010). We revisit the question of the extent to which the emergence of a racialized politics in Latin America foments or alleviates inequalities when we discuss Tianna Paschel’s chapter, “Beyond Race or Class: Entangled Inequalities in Latin America,” on the black consciousness movements in Brazil and Colombia in subsequent sections of this report. Given the historical trajectory of welfare states in the western hemisphere, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the rise of white backlash politics in Latin America might lead to retrenchments in the region’s welfare states. After all, scholars of American politics have long pointed to the ways in which white backlash movements have generated incentives for politicians to attack the modern welfare state (Hancock Reference Hancock2004; Neubeck and Cazenave Reference Neubeck and Cazenave2001; Quadagno Reference Quadagno1994; Soss et al. Reference Soss, Schram, Vartanian and O’Brien2001).

Comparative scholarship on inequality has also highlighted the importance of the overall design and performance of welfare states in their roles as vehicles for reducing poverty (Duncan et al. Reference Duncan, Gustafsson, Hauser, Schmaus, Jenkins, Messinger, Muffels, Nolan, Ray, Voges, McFate, Lawson and Wilson1995; Kenworthy Reference Kenworthy1999; McFate et al. Reference McFate, Seeding, Rainwater, McFate, Lawson and Wilson1995). The concerns that Htun and Loveman express about the rise of efforts to address racial inequality via race-conscious policies in Latin America are derived from the fact that the subregion’s relatively new welfare states have performed very well in their central task of reducing poverty. By contrast, the modern US welfare state has been bifurcated from its inception in the New Deal era, and performed very well at reducing poverty for those classified as white, while leaving behind those excluded by the color-caste system that reigned in the United States until the late twentieth century (Fox Reference Fox2012; Katznelson Reference Katznelson2005; Williams Reference Williams2003). In the US context, the notion of a race-neutral welfare state is nothing more than a thought experiment. Moreover, one of the fundamental challenges for combatting rising inequality in the United States by expanding welfare provision is the tendency of white voters to ignore the transfers that have flowed to their families for generations, while simultaneously demonizing the state for attempting to equalize access to minorities under the various Great Society programs (Brown et al. Reference Brown, Carnoy, Currie, Duster, Oppenheimer, Schultz and Wellman2003; Gilens Reference Gilens1999; Katznelson Reference Katznelson2005; Mettler Reference Mettler2010).

In their chapter, “Learning from Ferguson: Welfare, Criminal Justice, and the Political Science of Race and Class,” Soss and Weaver persuasively argue that racist narratives of the US welfare state have stigmatized underserved communities of color—which they term race-class-subjugated (RCS) communities—beyond simply limiting their access to social provision aimed at reducing poverty. For Soss and Weaver, these racialized narratives of welfare provision construct “public understandings” of communities of color being outside of the commonwealth. In their view, these narratives leave RCS communities vulnerable to depredations such as the “poverty-trap,” broken-windows style of policing that the US Department of Justice recently condemned in a report on Ferguson, Missouri. In short, Soss and Weaver assert that the exclusion of RCS communities from the welfare state is the antecedent factor in the denial of equal citizenship rights and fair treatment from other US institutions that exercise state power.

Banting’s and Thompson’s provocative chapter, “The Puzzling Persistence of Racial Inequality in Canada,” provides a cautionary tale to all of Canada’s southern neighbors seeking to use their welfare states to close socioeconomic gaps between ethnoracial groups. In the late twentieth century, Canada achieved global recognition for developing policy regimes to grapple with the nation’s history of abuse and discrimination toward aboriginal peoples, adopting color-blind immigration laws and fostering multicultural tolerance. Despite these advantages, Banting and Thompson highlight a stubborn persistence of socioeconomic gaps between ethnoracial minorities and whites in Canada. Existing disparities were exacerbated by the retrenchment of Canada’s welfare state, which took place primarily in the late 1980s and 1990s. This time was precisely when changes in immigration policies led to record numbers of immigrants of color coming from developing countries, and those immigrants were facing greater problems moving into the labor market, despite having higher educational credentials than previous cohorts of immigrants. In addition, an institutional quagmire in which neither the federal government nor the provinces have taken responsibility for creating effective social policies for Canada’s indigenous peoples has worked to solidify the significant socioeconomic disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians. Banting and Thompson argue that rebuilding universal redistributive programs alongside race-targeted antidiscrimination policies would help remedy these ethnoracial gaps between whites and peoples of color in Canada.

ATTITUDES, GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS, AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

The study of attitudes about ethnic and racial group differences has been a key component of social science research since the rise of survey and experimental research techniques in the early twentieth century (Allport Reference Allport1954; Bogardus Reference Bogardus1928). Most of the early work in political science focused on the determinants of the racist attitudes whites held toward African Americans in the southern United States during desegregation (Campbell Reference Campbell1971; Matthews and Prothro Reference Matthews and Prothro1966; Wright Reference Wright1977). In the wake of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which completed the formal restoration of citizenship rights to African Americans in the South, political scientists shifted their attention to understanding the determinants of white racial attitudes across the nation (Bobo Reference Bobo, Katz and Taylor1988; Giles and Hertz Reference Giles and Hertz1994; Schuman et al. Reference Schuman, Steeh and Bobo1985). These studies confirm V.O. Key’s (Reference Key1949) “racial threat” thesis, which holds that whites tend to view African Americans as a threat to their privileged group position and interests within the polity, particularly, the relationship Key elaborated between spatial concentration of African Americans in the environment and the development of white racist attitudes.

Given that labor market outcomes, housing quality, educational opportunities, and welfare state provisions all tracked with racial group membership during the United States’ long history as a Herrenvolk democracy, white Americans’ tendency to see the mere presence of African Americans in their vicinity as a threat caused great consternation among social scientists. Indeed, even before the legislative victories of the Civil Rights Movement were consolidated, social scientists began examining the conditions that might lead whites to soften their negative predispositions toward African Americans (Allport Reference Allport1954; Deutsch and Collins Reference Deutsch and Collins1951; Myrdal Reference Myrdal1944). The contact thesis—the view that sustained, noncompetitive social interactions with African Americans could moderate white racism—emerged from these early studies as the best hope for the United States to forge a healthy multiracial democracy (Aberbach and Walker Reference Aberbach and Walker1973; Meer and Freedman Reference Meer and Freeman1966; Sigelman and Welch Reference Sigelman and Welch1993; Wilner et al. Reference Wilner, Walkley and Cook1955).

By the 1980s, support for the contact thesis had declined markedly among social scientists for several reasons. First, there is considerable evidence that whites see race relations through the lens of, what sociologist Herbert Blumer (Reference Blumer1958) called, “group position,” rather than their own personal experiences with African Americans. Thus, whites who have positive contacts with African American cohorts do not tend to translate that affective position to views of the larger group or policies designed to close the persistent racial gaps that differentiate white and black life chances in the United States (Jackman and Crane Reference Jackman and Crane1986). Second, given the nature of racial segregation in the United States (Iceland and Weinberg Reference Iceland and Weinberg2002; Massey and Denton Reference Massey and Denton1993), the possibility that racism could be reduced by sustained social interactions between whites and African Americans is highly unlikely. Finally, the most robust findings about attitude change among whites occur when they form sustained relationships with African Americans who have obtained a higher socioeconomic status than theirs (Jackman and Crane Reference Jackman and Crane1986). Again, given the persistent racial gaps in income and wealth between whites and African Americans, these are the types of contacts that whites seldom experience.

The twentieth century closed with a bleak assessment from social science research about white racial attitudes. While several studies reported moderation of overtly racist attitudes among whites in the United States (Firebaugh and Davis Reference Firebaugh and Davis1988; Steeh and Schuman Reference Steeh and Schuman1992; Taylor et al. Reference Taylor, Sheatsley and Greeley1978;), they continue to express widespread skepticism about policies designed to close the racial gaps that are the result of the systemic exclusion of African Americans during the Herrenvolk phase of American history (Bobo et al. Reference Bobo, Kluegel, Smith, Tuch and Martin1997; Kinder and Sanders Reference Kinder and Sanders1996; Kinder and Sears 1981). Recent studies have also shown that whites are increasingly seeing Latinos and Asian Americans through the lens of a “racial threat” to their group position due to the demographic shifts in the United States as a result of immigration (Bobo and Hutchings Reference Bobo and Hutchings1996; Hood and Morris Reference Hood and Morris1997; Maddux et al. Reference Maddux, Galinsky, Cuddy and Polifroni2008; Rocha and Espino Reference Rocha and Espino2009; Tolbert and Grummel Reference Tolbert and Grummel2003). Finally some evidence exists that president Barack Obama’s historic victory in 2008 has promoted a spike in “old-fashioned racism,” whereby white respondents are more likely to express antipathy toward African Americans in terms that resemble southern opposition to black equality during earlier periods (Tesler Reference Tesler2013).

The twentieth century closed with a bleak assessment from social science research about white racial attitudes.

During the past 20 years, political scientists have made considerable progress modeling the environmental determinants of white racial attitudes in the United States (Branton and Jones Reference Branton and Jones2005; Huckfeldt and Kohfeld Reference Huckfeldt and Kohfeld1989; Oliver and Mendelberg Reference Oliver and Mendelberg2000; Oliver and Wong Reference Oliver and Wong2003). Socioeconomic class has figured quite prominently in these models. Oliver and Mendelberg (Reference Oliver and Mendelberg2000), for example, demonstrated that whites living in “low-status contexts” have a greater likelihood of becoming hostile toward racial minorities and policies that target them irrespective of actual interracial competition. In other words, low-status whites are more likely to develop racist attitudes regardless of their level of exposure to minorities.

The finding of connections between low socioeconomic status and white hostility toward racial and ethnic minorities has been replicated in Canada (Blake Reference Blake2003; Pettigrew Reference Pettigrew2007). Moreover, Blake (Reference Blake2003) has shown that, like in the American case, low-status social contexts have a potent effect on white racial attitudes regardless of the levels of “realistic competition” that they experience in relation to ethnic and racial minorities. These findings are especially striking given that, in contrast to the United States, Canada lacks the historical legacies of a racial caste system.

As we have seen, most of the nations of Latin America developed ascriptive hierarchies that privileged European-descended populations over other ethnoracial groups at some point. As Trejo and Altamirano have shown in their chapter, these European-descended populations in Mexico continue to receive greater access to basic services, such as clean water and education, than their darker-skinned co-nationals. Moreover, their evidence shows that there is no “whitening” effect—that is, the service gap between whites and dark-brown Mexicans persists at all levels of wealth and income. Similarly, there is evidence of active racial discrimination against nonwhites in labor markets in the region. In Brazil, for example, significant income disparities exist between whites and nonwhites with similar levels of education and experience (do Valle Silva Reference do Valle Silva2000; Lovell Reference Lovell1994; Sanchez and Bryan Reference Sanchez and Bryan2003). Despite these facts, little attention has been given to the role that socioeconomic context plays in the formation of white racial attitudes in Latin America. Perhaps this is because Latin America’s supposedly greater variety of ethnic and racial categories and the often fluid borders between them has made it difficult for many researchers to see whites in Latin Americas as occupying the same hegemonic group position that they do in the United States and Canada (Portes Reference Portes1984; Wade Reference Wade1997). As comparative studies of the census have shown, however, the United States has also used multiple racial classifications despite its supposedly binary racial order based on the one-drop rule (Nobles Reference Nobles2000). Recent public opinion studies reveal burgeoning resentment to social policies designed to upgrade the status of indigenous and Afro-descendant populations and that those individuals who identify as white in Latin America have developed a racialized group consciousness and competitive frame for viewing race relations (Bailey et al. Reference Bailey, Failho and Peria2015; Htun Reference Htun2004). In light of these findings, the environmental determinants of white racial attitudes in Latin America can no longer be ignored.

In the shadow of the Great Recession, which was a global economic crisis (Bagliano and Morana Reference Bagliano and Morana2012; Llaudes et al. Reference Llaudes, Salmon and Chivakul2010), political scientists need to examine the relationship between socioeconomic class and white racial attitudes in the United States, Canada, and Latin America. In both the United States and Canada, whites will remain the demographic majority for several more decades into this century. As several members of the task force highlight, this means that the beliefs, fears, and attitudes of whites will continue to have a disproportionate impact on political dynamics and social policy in these nations for the foreseeable future.

It is also important that political scientists diversify their approach to conceptualizing socioeconomic standing. As we have seen, most previous research has used the level of educational attainment as a proxy for socioeconomic status in modeling the relationship between low status and racist attitudes among whites. In light of the flattening of incomes outside of the top 1% in the United States, the shrinking welfare state in Canada, and economic slowdowns in Latin America, political scientists should consider how such reversals contribute to the environment in which public opinions about race and class are formed.

Vincent Hutchings’s chapter, “Public Opinion and Inequality in the United States,” works through some of these questions by examining attitudes toward egalitarianism among white, black, and Latino Americans in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. Using data from the 2012 American National Election Study (ANES), Hutchings finds that whites have the lowest commitments to the general principle of egalitarianism among the three racial groups in the study. Moreover, Hutchings also demonstrates that whites with incomes below the national median are slightly more committed to the principle of egalitarianism than their higher-income counterparts. Given the strong bivariate relationship between education and income (Bailey and Dynarski Reference Bailey and Dynarski2011: Belley and Lochner Reference Belley and Lochner2007), this finding suggests that higher educational attainment may no longer moderate white racial resentment, as previous studies had identified.

By bringing African American and Latino attitudes about egalitarianism into the equation, Hutchings builds on a robust research program examining the dynamics of racial attitude formation among minority groups in the United States in the post-civil rights era (Bobo and Hutchings Reference Bobo and Hutchings1996; Dawson 1994; Gay Reference Gay2004; Gay Reference Gay2006; Oliver and Wong Reference Oliver and Wong2003; Tate Reference Tate1993). Most of these studies have found that some degree of group consciousness—rooted in past or present experiences of discrimination—is a major factor shaping the racial attitudes of African Americans and Latinos. Hutchings’ main finding is that “linked-fate” is an important factor that affects the relationship between income and attitudes about egalitarianism for Latinos and African Americans. In short, the more minority groups see themselves as part of a group the more likely they are to support egalitarian policies for everyone.

The concept of group consciousness also plays an important role in several other chapters. In their chapter, “Experiencing Inequality but Not Seeing Class: An Examination of Latino Political Attitudes,” Michael Jones-Correa and Sophia Wallace find that racial group consciousness generally trumps class-consciousness for Latinos in the United States. Indeed, their reanalysis of data from the ANES of 2008 and 2012 found that only about one-third of Latinos interviewed in those years viewed themselves as having a class identity. Although they do show that Latinos at higher educational and income levels are more likely than their counterparts to possess a “class consciousness,” Latinos are less likely than whites to see their social position in class terms. As Jones-Correa and Wallace point out, this result is incredibly surprising because several studies have shown that the Great Recession hit the Latino segment of the population incredibly hard (Kochlar et al. Reference Kolchar, Fry and Taylor2011; Pew 2014). Jones-Correa and Wallace posit that the stronger attachment that Latinos show to their ethnoracial identity is because of their experiences with racialization in recent debates about immigration policy. For Jones-Correa and Wallace, Latinos’ relatively weak attachment to class-consciousness in the 2008 and 2012 ANES means that it may be harder to mobilize the Latino community to support race-neutral public policies targeting economic inequality.

. . . the more minority groups see themselves as part of a group the more likely they are to support egalitarian policies for everyone.

Jones-Correa and Wallace’s findings about the Latino community dovetail with the broad perspective on social movements developed by Michael Dawson and Megan Francis in their chapter “Black Blues: The Persistence of Racialized Economic Inequality in Black Communities.” That is, the Latino respondents who are the subjects of the Jones-Correa and Wallace chapter seemed to have developed an intersectional analysis of race and class that resembles the black experiences of the post-civil rights era that Dawson and Francis analyze. As Dawson and Francis explain, African Americans have long understood that the economic inequalities that they experience in the United States are part of a system of oppression based on racial difference. So, for Dawson and Francis, the Great Recession is best understood as a continuation of an assault on black lives that began in the Jim Crow era. Although they see governmental action—that is, a federal jobs program—as a way to redress this “economic racial violence,” the main solution, in their view, is a social movement based on the same “black radical tradition” that fueled the end of legally encoded racial segregation in the United States in the middle of the twentieth century.

PARTIES, ELECTIONS, AND REPRESENTATION

As we have noted, democratic regimes (albeit with differing degrees of longevity, stability, and effectiveness) currently dominate the landscape of the Americas. Although a variety of constitutional forms, electoral rules, and party systems exist in the western hemisphere, two inescapable facts cut across all of these differences: people of color and the poor are underrepresented in nearly all of these nations (Carnes Reference Carnes2012; Cassellas Reference Cassellas2010; Griffin and Newman Reference Griffin and Newman2008; Hero and Tolbert Reference Hero and Tolbert1995; Houtzager et al. Reference Houtzager, Collier, Harriss and Lavalle2002; Juenke and Preuhs Reference Juenke and Preuhs2012; Luna and Zechmeister Reference Luna and Zechmeister2005; Wallace Reference Wallace2014). The task force examined these representation gaps across the Americas to glean insights into the factors leading to the exclusion of ethnoracial minorities and low-income citizens, as well as into the possible strategies that could be enacted to ameliorate them.

For many decades, the conventional wisdom within political science has held that individuals with low socioeconomic status participate less often in a variety of political activities than higher status individuals (Cassel and Hill Reference Cassel and Hill1981; Eagles Reference Eagles and Bakvis1991; Leighley and Nagler Reference Leighley and Nagler1992; Pammett Reference Pammet and Bakis1991; Powell Reference Powell1982;Verba and Nie Reference Verba and Nie1972; Wolfinger and Rosenstone Reference Wolfinger and Rosenstone1980). Political scientists have pointed to the need to expand the participation of lower-income groups to improve their representation within political institutions across the Americas (Burnham Reference Burnham and A James1987; Griffin and Newman Reference Griffin and Newman2005; Lijphardt Reference Lijphart1997; Piven and Cloward Reference Piven and Cloward1988; Verba Reference Verba2003). This view is best encapsulated by Walter Dean Burnham’s famous quip, “if you don’t vote [in a democracy], you don’t count” (1987, 99).

Zoltan Hajnal and Jessica Trounstine suggest in their chapter, “Race and Class Inequalities in Local Politics,” that expanding voter turnout has the potential to moderate some of the underrepresentation of minorities in urban areas of the United States. At the same time, they point out that racialized dynamics are at work in elections in US cities that will not disappear simply by raising minority turnout rates. Indeed, they find that “race is the primary driver of urban politics across most contexts” in the United States. Although there is a class skew toward high-income residents in the urban electorate, the average racial divides—between whites and African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos—in the vote for winning candidates “overshadows other demographic divides.” They also find that despite voting at higher rates than other minorities, and over-performing expectations based on their low-socioeconomic status, African Americans are the biggest losers in urban elections on most measures. Hajnal and Trounstine further argue that African Americans’ losing more often than Asian Americans and Latinos suggests that group competition exists between these minority groups, and that Asian Americans and Latinos have found it easier to form coalitions with whites and each other in urban elections. The consistent political losses of African Americans also pose a long-term problem for the health of US democracy.

Hajnal’s and Trounstine’s finding that there is group competition between African Americans and other minority groups at the local level is consistent with several previous studies (Kim Reference Kim2003; McClain and Karnig Reference McClain and Karnig1990; Meier et al. Reference Meier, McClain, Polinard and Winkle2004). For African Americans to win more frequently in urban elections, they need to forge new and more robust coalitions with Asian Americans and Latinos. Determining the barriers to the formation of these coalitions should be a top priority of political scientists. In other words, we need to understand how distinct group interests and or other factors, like anti-black racism, lead other groups to distance themselves from African Americans. The current literature tends to focus exclusively on the determinants of African American attitudes toward coalitions with other minorities. Gay (Reference Gay2004), for example, suggests that raising the socioeconomic status of African Americans could transform their perceptions of other minorities as a threat to their interests.

Examining the incentives for all groups, several recent studies have found that truly meaningful integration moderates intergroup conflict between minorities in US cities (Ha Reference Ha2010; Oliver and Wong Reference Oliver and Wong2003; Rocha Reference Rocha2007; Rudolph and Popp Reference Rudolph and Popp2010). Previous research has also shown that elite linkages can reduce conflict and facilitate coalitions between ethnoracial groups in urban areas (Bennett Reference Bennett1993; Browning et al. Reference Browning, Marshall and Tabb1984; Henry and Munoz Reference Henry, Munoz, Jackson and Preston1991; Sonenshein Reference Sonenshein1989). Although Trounstine (Reference Trounstine2010) suggests that political parties hold the potential to draw minority groups into enduring coalitions, she also notes that this potential is limited in the wake of the movement for nonpartisan government that swept US cities in the mid-twentieth century. The potential role that parties might play in closing the racial divides in American cities deserves greater attention in light of recent evidence that the Democratic Party has been successful in “bridging black-Latino concerns” on the national level (Hero and Preuhs Reference Hero and Preuhs2013).

. . . left parties in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru won the allegiance for indigenous voters through a combination of direct ethnic appeals and economic populism.

Political parties have also played an important role in shaping the incorporation of ethnoracial minorities in Latin America. In his chapter, “Indigenous Voters and the Rise of the Left in Latin America,” Raul Madrid demonstrates how leftist parties in the Andean region successfully realigned indigenous voters beginning in the late 1990s. Madrid shows that left parties in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru won the allegiance for indigenous voters through a combination of direct ethnic appeals and economic populism. He argues that this realignment was the key factor in the electoral gains that leftist parties made in Andean legislatures and some presidential elections in the late 1990s and early 2000s. According to Madrid, one of the most striking features of the “ethnopopulist” strategies that leftist parties used in the Andean region was that they did not initially alienate nonindigenous voters. On the contrary, Madrid reports that the fusion of messages about ethnoracial and economic inequality helped the leftist parties attract voters outside of indigenous-dominated provinces as well. Finally, he points out that even when these left parties needed to pivot to more centrist messages to broaden their appeal in recent elections, they tended to maintain a focus on the inequalities faced by indigenous peoples in the Andean region. To some degree, this result is because the parties did a thorough job of integrating indigenous leaders into their organizations.

In the United States, political parties have a much more mixed history with regard to promoting the integration of ethnoracial minorities. Beginning in the Third Party System (1854–1890s), the two major political parties began to aggressively compete for the votes of European immigrants streaming into the nation’s rapidly industrializing cities (Bridges Reference Bridges1987; Sundquist Reference Sundquist2011). By the rise of the Fourth Party System (1896–1932), both the Democrats and Republicans had perfected “machine politics” in America’s urban areas. These machines were engines for both the acculturation and economic advancement of European immigrants (Dahl Reference Dahl1961; Henderson Reference Henderson1976; Ostrogorski Reference Ostrogorski1902; Schattschneider Reference Schattschneider1942). For the most part, the large urban machines did not extend the same benefits to people of color during the height of their power (Erie Reference Erie1990; Grimshaw Reference Grimshaw1992; Pinderhughes Reference Pinderhughes1987). Moreover, several scholars have demonstrated how in the current party system, the two major parties have often avoided courting voters of color out of deference to the racist attitudes that they believed the median voter held toward these minorities (Frymer Reference Frymer1999; Mendelberg Reference Mendelberg2001).

Paul Pierson’s chapter, “Race, Partisanship and the Rise of Income Inequality in the United States,” invokes this racial history as a partial explanation for the Republican Party’s radical shift on macroeconomic policy in the post-civil rights era. Drawing on his research with Jacob Hacker (2010), Pierson argues that: “race is likely a major factor in explaining why the GOP has radicalized around economic issues, and has been able to do so in a politically sustainable way.” He claims that the Republican Party’s reliance on the “Southern Strategy” to gain electoral advantage in the middle decades of the twentieth century has inadvertently turned the GOP into a regional party with no incentive to compromise with the Democrats. In Pierson’s view, this dynamic has freed Republican politicians to embrace radically conservative economic policies geared toward further enriching the top 1%. Pierson rightly points out the irony of the fact that the modal voter who patronizes the Republicans at the ballot box is among the most harmed by the party’s unwillingness to compromise on macroeconomic policies. Pierson also observes that people of color, who are disproportionately clustered at the bottom of the income distribution in the United States, are doubly harmed by the rising “top-end inequality” that results from “asymmetric polarization” and the racial appeals that sustain it.

In addition, several of the task force chapters demonstrate that open party systems do not always lead to outcomes that close socioeconomic gaps between ethnoracial groups, nor do they moderate income inequalities. The situation that Banting and Thompson describe in their chapter, “The Puzzling Persistence of Racial Inequality in Canada,” is instructive. According to Banting and Thompson, Canada’s current political parties have embraced the legacies of the “liberal ideologies” that informed the creation of that nation’s expansive welfare state in the 1960s and its multicultural policies. Indeed, they argue that Canadian political parties normally reject the racialized appeals that are so commonplace in the United States out of fear that they will be punished at the ballot box. The defeat of the Conservative Party in 2015—an election government in which they broke from Canadian tradition by insisting that Muslim women remove their niqabs during citizenship ceremonies and advancing a race-baiting proposal to create a Royal Canadian Mounted Police hotline for Canadians to report “barbaric cultural practices”—lends support to this hypothesis. At the same time, all of the major parties have also rejected economic populism in favor of retrenchment. In this situation, Banting and Thompson argue, the parties lack the vision and/or willingness to develop specific policies aimed at combatting the economic inequalities that track with certain racial identities. Thus, in Canada, it is impossible to fix racial inequality because the political elite has turned away from populist politics.

Paschel’s chapter, “Beyond Race or Class: Entangled Inequalities in Latin America,” highlights two other tensions between the politics of representation and public policies aimed at targeting racial and class inequalities in the Americas. Paschel notes that in both Brazil and Colombia race-conscious public policies have not dramatically improved the living standards of Afro-descendant and indigenous peoples in those nations. She argues that the progressive laws that these two countries have passed to establish group-based rights for ethnoracial minorities sometimes “do not stick” in the implementation phase. In Colombia, for example, she points out that politicians have often used the multicultural policies aimed at establishing black land rights in rural areas to advance their own favored development policies. In other words, they have coopted ethnoracial minorities, who have often lacked the ability to take advantage of these new laws, to serve their own ends. Paschel acknowledges that Brazil has done a better job than most other countries in the region in rapidly reducing their poverty rate through social welfare programs. At the same time, she notes that the “the impact of these policies on racial inequality is less clear.” This outcome is because race over-determines socioeconomic status in Brazil in the same way that it does throughout the region. Thus, the 50% reduction in poverty since the initiation of the “Bolsa Familia” welfare programs is significant, but those left behind are still disproportionately Afro-descendant. One reason for these continued gaps, Paschel suggests, is that the state and society lack the capacity to fully implement the progressive racial reforms that public opinion polls indicate most Brazilians support.

All of these findings show that ethnoracial minorities, even in countries in which they represent a large percentage of the population and participate actively in elections, are hampered in translating their demographic potential and civic participation into meaningful socioeconomic gains by their low socioeconomic status and the incentives of the party system.

Appendix

COUNTRIES OF NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA

Anguilla (UK)

Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Aruba (Kingdom of the Netherlands)

Barbados

Belize

Bermuda (UK)

Bolivia

Brazil

British Virgin Islands (UK)

Canada

Caribbean Netherlands (Kingdom of the Netherlands)

Cayman Islands (UK)

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Cuba

Curaçao (Kingdom of the Netherlands)

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

El Salvador

Falkland Islands

French Guiana

Greenland (Denmark)

Grenada

Guadeloupe (France)

Guatemala

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Jamaica

Martinique (France)

Mexico

Montserrat (UK)

Nicaragua

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

Puerto Rico (US)

Saint Barthélemy (France)

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Martin (France)

Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France)

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Sint Maarten (Kingdom of the Netherlands)

Suriname

The Bahamas

Trinidad and Tobago

Turks and Caicos Islands (UK)

United States

United States Virgin Islands (US)

Uruguay

Venezuela

References

REFERENCES

Aberbach, Joel D. and Walker, Jack L.. 1973. Race in the City: Political Trust and Public Policy in the New Urban System. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Allen, Walter R. and Farley, Reynolds. 1986. “The Shifting Social and Economic Tides of Black America, 1950–1960,” Annual Review of Sociology 12: 277306.Google Scholar
Allport, Gordon. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Andrews, George Reid. 2004. Afro-Latin America, 1800–2000. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Martha J. and Dynarski, Susan M.. 2011. “Gains and Gaps: Changing Inequality in U.S. College Entry and Completion.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers Series 17633: 130.Google Scholar
Bailey, Stanley R., Failho, Fabricio, and Peria, Michelle. 2015. “Support for Race-Targeted Affirmative Action in Brazil.” Ethnicities 0 (0): 134.Google Scholar
Bagliano, Fabio and Morana, Claudio. 2012. “The Great Recession: US Dynamics and Spillovers to the World Economy.” Journal of Banking and Finance 36 (1): 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2009. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Belley, Philippe and Lochner, Lance. 2007. “The Changing Role of Family Income and Ability in Determining Educational Attainment.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers Series 13527: 168.Google Scholar
Bennett, Larry. 1993. “Harold Washington and the Black Urban Regime.” Urban Affairs Review 28 (3): 423–40.Google Scholar
Blake, Donald E. 2003. “Environmental Determinants of Racial Attitudes among White Canadians.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 491509.Google Scholar
Blumer, Herbert. 1958. “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.” The Pacific Sociological Review 1 (1): 37.Google Scholar
Bobo, Lawrence. 1988. “Group Conflict, Prejudice, and the Paradox of Contemporary Racial Attitudes.” In Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy, eds. Katz, Phyllis and Taylor, Dalmas. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Bobo, Lawrence and Hutchings, Vincent. 1996. “Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer’s Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context.” American Sociological Review 61 (6): 951–72.Google Scholar
Bobo, Lawrence, Kluegel, James R., and Smith, Ryan A.. 1997. “Laissez-Faire Racism: The Crystallization of a Kinder, Gentler, Antiblack Ideology.” In Racial Attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and Change, eds. Tuch, Steven A. and Martin, Jack K.. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Bogardus, Emory S. 1928. Immigration and Race Attitudes. Boston: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Branton, Regina and Jones, Bradford S.. 2005. “Reexamining Racial Attitudes: The Conditional Relationship between Diversity and Socioeconomic Environment.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 359–72.Google Scholar
Bridges, Amy. 1987. A City in the Republic: Antebellum New York and the Origins of Machine Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael K., Carnoy, Martin, Currie, Elliot, Duster, Troy, Oppenheimer, David B., Schultz, Majorie M., and Wellman, David. 2003. White-Washing Race: The Myth of the Color-Blind Society. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Browning, Rufus P., Marshall, Dale Rogers, and Tabb, David H.. 1984. Protest Is Not Enough: The Struggle of Blacks and Hispanics for Equality in Urban Politics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1987. “The Turnout Problem.” In Elections American Style, ed. A James, Reichley, 97133. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus. 1971. White Attitudes toward Black People. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Carnes, Nicholas. 2012. “Does the Numerical Underrepresentation of the Working Class in Congress Matter?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(February): 534.Google Scholar
Carnes, Nicholas. 2016. “Why Are There So Few Working-Class People in Political Office? Evidence from State Legislatures.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 4 (1): 84109.Google Scholar
Cassel, Carol A. and Hill, David B.. 1981. “Explanations of Turnout Decline: A Multivariate Test.” American Politics Quarterly 9: 191–95.Google Scholar
Cassellas, Jason. 2010. Latino Representation in State Houses and Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Douglas, Vilas, Carlos, Hite, Katherine, Martin, Scott, Piester, Kerianne, and Segarra, Monique. 2003. The New Politics of Inequality in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dawson, Michael C. 1993. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
de la Fuente, Alejandro. 2001. A Nation for All: Race, Inequality, and Politics in Twentieth-Century Cuba. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, Morton and Collins, Mary. 1951. Interracial Housing: A Psychological Evaluation of a Social Experiment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Drescher, Seymour. 1977. Econocide: British Slavery in the Era of Abolition. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. “An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy 65 (2): 135150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
do Valle Silva, Nelson. 2000. “A Research Note on the Cost of Not Being White in Brazil.” Studies in Comparative International Development 35 (2): 1828.Google Scholar
Duncan, Greg J. and Gustafsson, Bjorn, Hauser, Richard, Schmaus, Gunther, Jenkins, Stephen, Messinger, Hans, Muffels, Ruud, Nolan, Brian, Ray, Jean-Claude, and Voges, Wolfgang. 1995. “Poverty and Social-Assistance Dynamics in the United States, Canada and Europe.” In Poverty, Inequality and the Future of Social Policy: Western Welfare States in the New World Order, eds. McFate, Kate, Lawson, Roger and Wilson, William Julius. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Eagles, Donald Munroe. 1991. “Voting and Non-Voting in Canadian Federal Elections: An Ecological Analysis.” In Voter Turnout in Canada, ed., Bakvis, H.. Toronto: Dundurn Press.Google Scholar
Eltis, David. 1987. Economic Growth and the Ending of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eltis, David. 2000. The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eltis, David and Richardson, David. 2010. “The Transatlantic Slave Trade Database.” Atlanta, GA: Emory University.Google Scholar
Erie, Steven. 1990. Rainbow’s End: Irish Americans and the Dilemmas of UrbanMachine Politics, 1840–1985. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda. 1985. Bringing the State Back In. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Firebaugh, Glenn and Davis, Kenneth E.. 1988. “Trends in Antiblack Prejudice, 1972–1984: Region and Cohort Effects.” American Journal of Sociology 94 (2): 251–72.Google Scholar
Fox, Cybelle. 2012. Three Worlds of Relief: Race, Immigration, and the American Welfare State from the Progressive Era to the New Deal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul. 1999. Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gay, Claudine. 2004. “Putting Race in Context: Identifying the Environmental Determinants of Black Racial Attitudes.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 547–62.Google Scholar
Gay, Claudine. 2006. “Seeing Difference: The Effect of Economic Disparity on Black Attitudes toward Latinos.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (4): 982–97.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1994. Politician’s Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gee, Ellen M. and Prus, Steven G.. 2000. “Income Inequality in Canada: A Racial Divide.” Perspectives on Ethnicity in Canada: A Reader 4: 238–56.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2013. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, Michael and Hertz, Kaenan. 1994. “Racial Threat and Partisan Identification.” American Political Science Review 88: 317–26.Google Scholar
Griffin, John and Newman, Brian. 2005. “Are Voters Better Represented?” Journal of Politics 67 (4): 1206–227.Google Scholar
Griffin, John and Newman, Brian. 2008. Minority Report: Evaluating Political Equality in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, William J. 1992. Bitter Fruit: Black Politics and the Chicago Machine, 1931–1991. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ha, Shang E. 2010. “The Consequences of Multiracial Contexts on Public Attitudes toward Immigration.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (1): 2942.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob. 2002. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob. 2008. The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob and Pierson, Paul. 2010. “Winner-Take-All Politics: Public Policy, Political Organization, and the Precipitous Rise of Top Incomes in the United States.” Politics and Society 38 (2): 152204.Google Scholar
Hall, A. 2006. “From Fome Zero to Bolsa Familia: Social Policies and Poverty Alleviation under Lula.” Journal of Latin American Studies 38 (4): 689709.Google Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2004. The Politics of Disgust: The Public Identity of the Welfare Queen. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, Thomas M. 1976. Tammany Hall and the New Immigrants: The Progressive Years. Manchester, NH: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Henry, Charles P. and Munoz, Carlos Jr. 1991. “Ideological and Interest Linkages in California Rainbow Politics.” In Racial and Ethnic Politics in California, eds. Jackson, Bryan O. and Preston, Michael B., 323–38. Berkeley, California: IGS Press.Google Scholar
Hernández, Tanya Katerí. 2012. Racial Subordination in Latin America: The Role of the State, Customary Law, and the New Civil Rights Response. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hero, Rodney. 1992. Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-Tiered Pluralism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Hero, Rodney and Tolbert, Caroline. 1995. “Latinos and Substantive Representation in the US House of Representatives: Direct, Indirect, or Nonexistent?” American Journal of Political Science 39 (3): 640–52.Google Scholar
Hero, Rodney and Preuhs, Robert. 2013. Black-Latino Relations in US National Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hood, M. V. and Morris, Irwin L.. 1997. “¿Amigo O Enemigo? Context, Attitudes, and Anglo Public Opinion Towards Immigration.” Social Science Quarterly 78 (2): 309–23.Google Scholar
Houtzager, Peter, Collier, Ruth Berins, Harriss, John, and Lavalle, Adrian. 2002. “Rights, Representation and the Poor: Comparisons across Latin America and India.” Institute for Development Studies , Working Paper No. 02-31: 113.Google Scholar
Htun, Mala. 2004. “From ‘Racial Democracy’ to Affirmative Action: Changing State Policy on Race in Brazil.” Latin American Research Review 39 (1): 6089.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert and Kohfeld, Carol. 1989. Race and the Decline of Class in American Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Iceland, John and Weinberg, Daniel. 2002. Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States, 1980–2000. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.Google Scholar
Jackman, Mary R. and Crane, Mary. 1986. “Some of My Best Friends are Black…”: Interracial Friendship and Whites’ Racial Attitudes.” Public Opinion Quarterly 50 (4): 459–86.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Larry and Skocpol, Theda. 2005. Inequality and American Democracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Jennings, Francis. 1975. The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Juenke, Eric and Preuhs, Robert. 2012. “Irreplaceable Legislators? Rethinking Minority Representatives in the New Century.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (3): 705–15.Google Scholar
Katznelson, Ira. 2005. When Affirmative Action was White: An Untold History ofRacial Inequality in the Twentieth Century. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Kenworthy, Lane. 1999. “Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment.” Social Forces 77 (3): 1119–139.Google Scholar
Key, Valdimer Orlando. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: A.A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Kim, Claire J. 1999. “The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans.” Politics and Society 27 (1): 105138.Google Scholar
Kim, Claire J. 2003. Bitter Fruit: The Politics of Black-Korean Conflict in New York City. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. and Sanders, Lynn. 1996. Divided By Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. and Sears, David. “Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism versus Racial Threats to the Good Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 (3): 414–31.Google Scholar
Kolchar, Rakesh, Fry, Richard, and Taylor, Paul. 2011. “Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.” Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Leighley, Jan E. and Nagler, Jonathan. 1992. “Individual and Systemic Influences on Turnout: Who Votes? 1984.” Journal of Politics 54: 718–40.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Robert. 2001. Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma, Presidential Address.” American Political Science Review 91 (01): 114.Google Scholar
Llaudes, Ricardo, Salmon, Ferhan, and Chivakul, Mali. 2010. “The Impact of the Great Recession on Emerging Markets.” IMF Working Paper 10 (237): 130.Google Scholar
Lomeli, Enrique V. 2008. “Conditional Cash Transfers as Social Policy in Latin America: An Assessment of Their Contributions and Limitations.” Annual Review of Sociology 34: 475–99.Google Scholar
Lovell, Peggy. 1994. “Race, Gender and Development.” Latin American Research Review 29 (3): 735.Google Scholar
Luna, Jaun Pablo and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2005. “Political Representation in Latin America.” Comparative Political Studies 38 (4): 388416.Google Scholar
Maddux, William W., Galinsky, Adam D., Cuddy, Amy J. C., and Polifroni, Mark. 2008. “When Being a Model Minority is Good and Bad: Realistic Threat Explains Negativity toward Asian Americans.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (1): 7489.Google Scholar
Marx, Anthony. 1998. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Massey, Douglas and Denton, Nancy A.. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Donald and Prothro, James. 1966. Negroes and the New Southern Politics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Racial Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McClain, Paula D. and Karnig, Albert. 1990. “Black and Hispanic Socioeconomic and Political Competition.” American Political Science Review 84 (2): 535–45.Google Scholar
McFate, Kate, Seeding, Timothy, and Rainwater, Lee. 1995. “Markets and States: Poverty Trends and Transfer System Effectiveness in the 1980s.” In Poverty, Inequality and the Future of Social Policy: Western Welfare States in the New World Order, eds. McFate, Kate, Lawson, Roger, and Wilson, William Julius. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Meer, Bernard and Freeman, Edward. 1966. “The Impact of Negro Neighbors on White Homeowners.” Social Forces 45: 1119.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J., McClain, Paul D., Polinard, J. L., and Winkle, Robert D.. 2004. “Divided or Together? Conflict and Cooperation between African Americans and Latino.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 399409.Google Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 2010. “Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (3): 803–24.Google Scholar
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma. New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Neubeck, Kenneth J. and Cazenave, Noel A.. 2001. Welfare Racism: Playing the Race Card Against America’s Poor. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nobles, Melissa. 2000. Shades of Citizenship: Race and the Census in Modern Politics. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, Eric and Mendelberg, Tali. 2000. “Reconsidering the Environmental Determinants of White Racial Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 574–89.Google Scholar
Oliver, Eric and Wong, Janelle. 2003. “Intergroup Prejudice in Multiethnic Settings.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (4): 567–82.Google Scholar
Oliver, Melvin and Shapiro, Thomas. 2006. Black Wealth, White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Omi, Michael and Winant, Howard. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ostrogorski, Moisei. 1902. Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties. New York: Macmillan and Company.Google Scholar
Pammet, Jon H. 1991. “Voting Turnout in Canada,” In Voter Turnout in Canada, ed. Bakis, H.. Toronto: Dundurn Press.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1957. “Desegregation and Its Chances for Success: Northern and Southern Views.” Social Forces 35 (4): 339–44.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, Thomas F. 2007. “Who Opposes Immigration?” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 4 (1): 1939.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2014. “Wealth Inequality Has Widened Along Racial/Ethnic Lines Since the End of the Great Recession.” Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.Google Scholar
Pinderhughes, Dianne. 1987. Race and Ethnicity in Chicago Politics: A Reexamination of Pluralist Theory. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard A.. 1988. Why Americans Don’t Vote. New York: Pantheon Press.Google Scholar
Portes, Alejandro. 1984. “The Rise of Ethnicity: Determinants of Ethnic Perceptions among Cuban Exiles in Miami.” American Sociological Review 49 (3): 383–97.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 1982. Comparative Democracies: Participation, Stability and Violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quadagno, Jill. 1994. The Color of Welfare: How Racism Undermined the War on Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rocha, Rene R. 2007. “Black-Brown Coalitions in Local School Board Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (2): 315–27.Google Scholar
Rocha, Rene R. and Espino, Rodolfo. 2009. “Racial Threat, Residential Segregation, and the Policy Attitudes of Anglos.” Political Research Quarterly 62 (2): 415–26.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Thomas J. and Popp, Elizabeth. 2010. “Race, Environment and Interracial Trust.” Journal of Politics 72 (1): 7489.Google Scholar
Sanchez, Margarita and Bryan, Maurice. 2003. “Afro-Descendants, and Discrimination Economic Exclusion in Latin America.” London: Minority Rights Group International.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. 1942. Party Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Schuman, Howard, Steeh, Charles, and Bobo, Lawrence. 1985. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee and Welch, Susan. 1993. “The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black-White Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes.” Social Forces 71 (3): 781–95.Google Scholar
Herbert, Simon.. 1965. Administrative Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Thomas. 2003. The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers. 1997. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Soares, Fabio V. S., Ribas, Rafael, and Osorio, Rafael. 2010. “Evaluating the Impact of Brazil’s Bolsa Familia: Cash Transfer Programs in Comparative Perspective.” Latin American Research Review 45 (2): 173–90.Google Scholar
Sonenshein, Raphael J. 1989. “The Dynamics of Biracial Coalitions: Crossover Politics in Los Angeles.” The Western Political Quarterly 42 (2): 333–53.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe, Schram, Sanford F., Vartanian, Thomas P., and O’Brien, Erin. 2001. “Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (2): 378–95.Google Scholar
Steeh, Charles and Schuman, Howard. 1992. “Young White Adults: Did Racial Attitudes Change in the 1980s?” American Journal of Sociology 98 (2): 340–67.Google Scholar
Sundquist, James L. 2011. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Tate, Katherine. 1993. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, D. G., Sheatsley, P. B., and Greeley, A. M.. 1978. “Attitudes toward Racial Integration.” Scientific American 238 (6): 4249.Google Scholar
Telles, Edward E. 2004. Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Telles, Edward E. 1994. “Industrialization and Racial Inequality in Employment: The Brazilian Example.” American Sociological Review 59 (September); 4663.Google Scholar
Telles, Edward, and Project on Ethnicity and Race in Latin America. 2014. Pigmentocracies: Ethnicity, Race, and Color in Latin America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Tesler, Michael. 2013. “The Return of Old-Fashioned Racism to White Americans’ Partisan Preferences in the Early Obama Era.” Journal of Politics 75 (1): 110–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todorov, Tzevtan. 1984. The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J. and Grummel, John A.. 2003. “Revisiting the Racial Threat Hypothesis: White Voter Support for California’s Proposition 209.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3 (2): 183202.Google Scholar
Trounstine, Jessica. 2010. “Representation and Accountability in Cities.” Annual Review of Political Science 13: 407–23.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney. 2003. “Would the Dream of Political Equality Turn out to Be a Nightmare?” Perspectives on Politics 1 (4): 663–79.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman. 1972. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Wade, Peter. 1997. Race and Ethnicity in Latin America. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, Sophia. 2014. “Examining Latino Support for Descriptive Representation: The Role of Identity and Discrimination.” Social Science Quarterly 95 (2): 311–27.Google Scholar
Willie, Charles V. 1978. “The Inclining Significance of Race,” Society 15 (5): 10.Google Scholar
Willie, Charles V. 1989. The Caste and Class Controversy on Race: Round Two of the Willie/Wilson Debate. Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Williams, Eric. 1944. Capitalism and Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Williams, Linda F. 2003. The Constraint of Race: Legacies of White Skin Privilege in America. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Wilner, Daniel, Walkley, Rosebelle, and Cook, Stuart. 1955. Human Relations in Interracial Housing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, William J. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Rosenstone, Stephen J.. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. 1977. “Contextual Models of Electoral Behavior: The Southern Wallace Vote,” American Political Science Review 71 (2): 497508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar