|
|
|
|
 |
BusinessWeek: April 27, 1992 |
|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads |
|
Economic Viewpoint
HOW IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LIKE CROP SUBSIDIES? I don't like group quotas and other aspects of affirmative-action programs, but I am puzzled by the handwringing and anger of those who are opposed, especially some intellectuals. Although no one has even rough estimates of the social costs and benefits of these programs, I strongly suspect that certain other subsidies and regulations do more damage. Examples include tax and other breaks to the housing industry, the declines in labor-force participation of elderly persons induced by the tax on Social Security benefits, and higher consumer prices due to quotas on imported cars, textiles, computer chips, and, until recently, steel. Opposition to affirmative-action programs may be strong because their effects can be so visible: for example, when such programs are used to admit students with weak records to law schools, medical schools, and premier universities or to help promote minority members into high-level jobs, while people who are more qualified are passed over. The harm from most other programs is indirect or hidden from view. ETHICAL APPEALS. Some opponents argue that affirmative-action regulations are worse than other government programs because the criteria are inborn characteristics: race, gender, national origin, and the like. But other programs that have nothing to do with inherited characteristics often in reality help only a small group. For example, hardly anyone not brought up on a farm ever becomes a commercial farmer. Thus, subsidies to agriculture are in a sense unavailable to people who grow up in cities. Supporters of affirmative action deny that it is the result simply of political power. They argue that justice demands compensation for the horrors of past discrimination. Opponents argue just as strongly that quotas violate our culture's principle of equal treatment for equal skills, and they reject the notion that the present generation can be held responsible for discrimination in the past. Both sides in this debate make valid points, but arguments about benefits are usually couched in terms of moral and ethical justifications, partly to gain the support of other voters. When was the last time you heard anyone defend a government program simply on the grounds that the person wanted to have the benefits? Although Republican opposition to quotas has helped the party make political inroads at the national level among white male blue-collar workers who traditionally voted for Democrats, clearly affirmative-action programs would not be politically viable if they had the support only of those blacks, women, and others who benefit. SHADOW OF DOUBT. Most other government programs could not have been implemented without support from persons not much affected by them one way or the other. Surely, management and employees at Chrysler Corp. did not have enough clout by themselves to get the large federal bailout a decade ago. Alone, the small number of sugar growers in the U.S. would not have had much chance of getting the restrictive quotas on sugar imports that have been in effect for the past 70 years. This need to inflate self-interest into a broader moral and ethical point is why no business executive pleads for government subsidies by explaining that otherwise he might lose his job or have to take a big cut in pay. Instead, he complains about unfair competition from abroad or frightens voters with tales of defense vulnerabilities or the loss of jobs and stockholder equity if help is not forthcoming. Opponents make much of how affirmative action detracts from the achievements of the most qualified members of minority groups. These able people suffer psychologically from skepticism about whether they deserve their success. Stephen L. Carter, a black professor at Yale Law School, in his book Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby, poignantly describes his experiences with this attitude. Of course, the doubt cast on the qualifications of successful minority members is unfortunate. But every government program hurts someone--often even some members of the groups that benefit. Studies have documented, for example, that programs involving acreage restrictions on agricultural crops benefit rich farmers sometimes at the expense of poor farmers, who do not get their fair share of the allotments. Recognizing that affirmative-action programs are government regulations with a complicated incidence of costs and benefits does not resolve the dispute over whether or not they are desirable. But it may help focus the debate on the real question: Do they cause as much harm or do as much good as other government programs that generate very little debate? | |
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 1991-2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
