a scientific approach sowell has labelled this attitude ... · vol 3 no 4 a scientific approach to...

Free Life ArchivVol 3 No

A Scientific Appto Race RelationBy Dan Aronoff

homas Sowell is an senior research fellowInstitute at Stanford

has written extensivelyinterrelationships of race, economic achievements in work has been very controverhas analysed the situation in cterms and arrived at conclusioquestion the most prevalent subject. In his words:

"Race makes a difference,transactions as in other areashas been a tendency to punpleasant fact, or else to dpurely moral terms. It needs tin cause-and-effect terms as w

Sowell is a black man and thhas absolutely no bearing on of his analysis, it is an impkeep in mind when coviciousness with which opponents attack him. His ararely been addressed by his his person is constantly being

I have discussed Sowell'numerous academics concommunity relations. Their rfrom "Uncle Tom" and sexpressions to more sober reseem to be based on Sbloodedness, as though it wtaste to apply economic theoresearch to race relations.

While admitting that Sowegood points, one scholar told stomach an approach whichsocial outcomes to intentionalI cited statistical evidence,"people are not numbers". Whsome of the conclusions of eche said: "the real world is mothan textbooks".

T

The Journal of the Libertarian Alliance Vol. 3 : No.4 - Article 5 of 7

e on the Web from the website www.libertarian-alliance.org.uk4 A Scientific Approach to Race Relations - Dan Aronoff

of 10

roachs

economist and at the HooverUniversity. He on theethnicity andAmerica. His

sial because heause-and-effectns that call intotheories on the

in economic of life. Thereass over thiseal with it ino be dealt withell . . . ".1

ough this factthe objectivity

ortant point tonsidering thesome of hisrguments haveopponents, butattacked.

s work withcerned with

esponses rangeimilar abusivejections whichowell's cold-

ere a lapse ofry or empirical

ll made someme he couldn't didn't impute actions. When he said thaten I described

onomic theory,re complicated

Sowell has labelled this attitude the"animistic fallacy". He has contrasted it tothe analytical approach of the sciences inwhich causal relationships are soughtregardless of the motivations or intentions ofanyone. On this point, he asserts.

"Perhaps the simplest and most emotionallysatisfying explanation of any observedphenomenon is that it happened that waybecause someone wanted it to happen thatway. This applies not only to socialphenomena but to natural phenomena aswell. Primitive peoples explained themovement of leaves on a tree by some spiritor God who wanted the leaf to move, had thepower to make it move, and so it moved . .Social phenomena may also be explainedeither animistically, from the intentions ofthe individuals involved, or in terms of themutually constraining complex of relation-ships whose results form a pattern notnecessarily similar to the intentions of any ofthe individuals involved".2

Sowell links his rejection of animism to theanalyses of Adam Smith and Kari Marx:

"Smith had no faith whatever in theintentions of businessmen, whom hecharacterised as mean and rapacious, butargued that the characteristics of a marketeconomic system would lead to beneficialresults which were no part of the intentionsof those acting within the system. Karl Marx,of course, had a far less benign view of theresults of a capitalistic system, but he - likeSmith - analysed the results in terms of thepresumed characteristics of the system, notthe apparent intentions of the individualcapitalists .... Engels sweepingly rejected[the animistic] approach with respect tosocial phenomena in general, 'for what eachindividual wills is obstructed by everyoneelse, and what emerges is something that noone willed' ".3

The importance of this Smith-Marx attitudefor Sowell's analysis of social phenomenacannot be overestimated. Sowell has beenaccused of denying that racism exists eventhough he has expressed his view of thematter by saying "I do not expect racism todisappear any more than I expect oxygen todisappear". The single most frequent

The Libertarian Alliance is an independent, non-party group, with a shared desire to work for a free society.

Free Life Archive on the Web from the website www.libertarian-alliance.org.ukVol 3 No 4 A Scientific Approach to Race Relations - Dan Aronoff

of 10

justification for government intervention onbehalf of blacks in the US is based on theidea that the economic effects of racism mustbe mitigated by forcible redress. Yet Sowellhas maintained that discrimination cannotaccount for differences in economicachievement, and that governmentintervention, even where it is explicitly andhonestly undertaken with the aim of helpinga particular group, cannot be presumed tohave beneficial consequences for that group.Neither the intentions of governments northe motivations of other economic agentshave the designed effects on the position ofany particular group.

Traditional Explanations for the LowIncomes of Blacks

There have been many explanations for thelow incomes of blacks in the US. By far themost common is the claim that racialdiscrimination is responsible for substandardeconomic performances. Yet, despite thevoluminous literature on the subject, it isvery difficult to find any hypotheses that areinternally consistent, definitionally explicit,or empirically testable. More often than notthere is a vague notion that blacks have beentreated unfairly and a general observationthat, on average, blacks have lower socio-economic status than whites. When it comesto imputing causal factors to these.observations the tenor of the debate candegenerate into an ideological shoutingmatch. One side may say that blacks are poorbecause they are 'stupid' and the otherresponds that blacks are poor because theyare disadvantaged' and adds that the formerare a bunch of bigots.

It is rarely made explicit just what is meantby 'stupid' or 'disadvantaged'. Is a group'disadvantaged' merely because they earnless than the average level of income,without reference to their internal cultural orattitudinal characteristics? Can their'stupidity' be measured objectively and aretheir test scores in any way related to theirsocio-economic position? These questionsnormally remain unaddressed, though theywould seem to be important.

A related error occurs when defining theextent that discrimination affects economicsuccess. One would expect that treating

discrimination as a causal factor wouldrequire that there be testable implications ofthe theory. For example, if discrimination byskin colour were deemed to be a crucialfactor, then it would be fruitful to comparethe experiences of a wide variety of groupswho had different skin colour from the localmajority. Yet one of the most celebratedstudies of the economic effects of racialdiscrimination in the US begins by simplydefining "discrimination" as all intergroupdifferences in economic prospects, but nevertesting the premise itself. "All intergroupdifferences in cultural orientation towardeducation, work, risk, management, etc . . .,are simply banished from consideration bydefinition".4

Sowell points out that this type of analysistreats as axiomatic what ought to be testable.The phenomenon to be explained, thestatistically low incomes of blacks, is"explained" as resulting from racialdiscrimination, and this, in turn, is defined as"below average earnings for a particulargroup". The theory is clearly empty. There isno observation that could possibly contradictit.

Another problem frequently encounteredwhen conducting empirical tests ofhypotheses is that if some crucial variableshaven't been specified, it is likely that themeasured effects of those variables whichhave been specified will be exaggerated. Theability to obtain statistically significantresults for theories about the effects of racialdiscrimination on black earnings can beexplained by a decision to regard only a fewvariables as crucial and then conducting thetests on this basis.

Other 'explanations' that have receivedattention include the hypothesis that blacksocial pathologies and economic misfortunesare primarily a result of the slaveryexperience or, alternatively, of their presentphysical surroundings. There is also a theorythat blacks are systematically barred fromgetting jobs in those sectors of the economywhere promotions and upward mobility aremost prevalent.

Several other explanations have beenoffered, and all of them have at least someempirically confirming instances. But



of 10

practically all of them are contradicted by theevidence at some point.

Sowell's achievement is twofold. He hasrefuted rival theories and he has offered aconsistent theory which better conforms tothe evidence.

Refutations of Alternative 'Explanations'

Before discussing Sowell's own theories, it isworthwhile to briefly recount his refutationsof various other theories.

1. The claim that racial prejudice isresponsible for the low incomes of blacks iscontradicted by the experience of otherethnic and racial minorities and also bysubgroups within the black population.

Racial prejudice did not stop the Jews fromrising to the top of the socio-economic ladderin the US. Nor have Anglo-Saxons, in theabsence of racial prejudice, been able to earnabove the national average income.

The most obvious difficulty which blacksface, and which no other ethnic minority inthe US faced, is the enduring legacy ofslavery and racism by skin colour. It is notclear, however, that either of these factorscan account for the low incomes of blacks.

For Japanese Americans, differences in skincolour and the experience of internmentcamps (an experience which virtually wipedout their total financial resources) did notprevent them from attaining a relativeincome second only to the Jews in the verynext generation. Skin colour differences orbondage have not prevented blacks whoseancestors were free persons of colour at thetime of emancipation from slavery, or recentWest Indian migrants to the US, fromattaining the national average level ofincome.

Thus, a history of persecution and racism byskin colour is simply not a convincingexplanation for the below average incomesof most blacks. It is not at all clear what arethe economic consequences of the psycho-logical traumas undergone by alienated andpersecuted groups. Jews faced the longestand one of the most brutal histories ofpersecution of any group in history, yet they

often seem to have developed an unusuallykeen ability to take advantage of economicopportunities.

2. The social problems of blacks are oftentraced to their legacy of slavery and sexualexploitation. Single-parent homes, highcrime rates and large families are allindications of a culture where immediategratification is the norm and individualresponsibility is a problem. Insofar as thesepathologies are common to all groups newlyentering an urban environment, the blacksare no exception: "The incidence of brokenhomes among blacks is about 30 per cent ...but among Irish in New York at the time ofthe First World War, family break-ups weremuch higher - 50 per cent of their familieshad broken homes".

The similarity of experience of the blacksand the Irish, as well as the low rate offamily break-ups among blacks from theWest Indies in the US, refutes the argumentthat black family instability is primarily aresult of the slavery experience.

Social reformers who claim otherwise ignorethe fact that single-parent homes are arelatively new phenomenon in black history.They are probably more an attribute ofurbanisation and specific welfare-statepolicies. Groups that have no history ofslavery - like Chicanos and Puerto Ricans -seem to exhibit the same pathologies whileother groups that do come from a slaverybackground - blacks from the West Indies -do not.

3. Observed social pathologies of lowincome groups are often attributed to theirphysical surroundings. Yet these pathologiescannot be permanent since every low incomeethnic minority in America has eventuallyrisen on the socio-economic ladder. (We alsohave the experience of urban renewal toshow that social maladjustments go deeperthan mere physical surroundings.) Thisprogress cannot simply be attributed to"society" - which grudgingly grants newrights or partial acceptance to a particulargroup. If members of a group were regardedas pariahs in one generation but are fullyaccepted in the next, some credit ought to begiven to their own internal cultural andattitudinal transformation.



of 10

"The gradual acculturation of the nineteenth-century immigrants likewise raised theirtastes and lowered their rates of crime anddisease. Many of their descendants now livein middle-class suburbs and often wonderhow black or Hispanic ghettos can be soterrible, when in fact those of their ancestorswere far worse".6

4. Genetic explanations for racial inequalityare equally dubious. If genetics could reallyaccount for income differences, then blackWest Indians would not have achievedhigher incomes relative to all other blacks.Genetic explanations of intelligence andincome inequality often ignore the culturalattitudes and motivations which may causeone group to score higher or lower on IQtests at a given time. Even aside fromquestions about the tests themselves, areshuffling of the IQ rankings of Americanethnic groups within a period of half acentury casts serious doubt on the theory ofgenetic determination of intelligences.

The average IQ of American Negroes hasgenerally been around 85 compared to anational average of 100, but this is notunique. Numerous European immigrantgroups had similar or lower IQs as recentlyas the 1920s. Moreover, the internal IQpatterns of American Negroes suggest strongenvironmental influences. Northern Negroeshave consistently scored higher on IQ teststhan have southern Negroes and while therehave been theories that "selectiveimmigration" led the genetically more ableblacks to move north, it has been shown thatthe better quality of northern schools causedthe same individuals to have higher IQs aftermoving north. Furthermore, high IQ Negroesare predominantly female, in contrast to thenational sex pattern among high IQ persons,and several studies have shown females ingeneral to be less affected by environmentthan males.

The fact that every poor group has scoredlow on IQ tests says nothing about how thosegroups eventually moved up the socio-economic ladder (or how their IQ scoressuddenly began to rise).

5. The belief that government interventionbeneficial to racial or ethnic minorities isalmost a dogma. Sowell has demonstrated

that it is fallacious. Policies designed to haltor hasten the progress of particular groups(short of slavery) have usually failed.

Blacks have made substantial progress sincethe Civil War, not always as a result ofgovernment policy. There is little evidenceof any correlation between political progress(or retrogression) and economic progress (orretrogression). In black history, political andeconomic progress has varied more or lessindependently (until recent years). From1890 to 1920, blacks suffered politicalrepression yet made substantial economicgains. In the 1930s blacks scored politicalgains under Roosevelt's "New Deal" butdeclined economically relative to whites.From 1953 to 1960, blacks scored politicalgains but suffered economic retrogressionrelative to whites. These facts seem toindicate that black economic progress is farmore closely related to general economicconditions than to specific governmentalpolicies. When labour markets were tight, asthey were during the two world wars and inthe 1960s blacks made the most rapideconomic progress. Since the early 1960snumerous government efforts have beenmade to advance blacks, but the results ofthese endeavours are difficult to distinguishfrom the effects of education, geographicredistribution and changing white attitudes.

For low income ethnic groups, attempting toraise themselves out of poverty, it may bemore important to have a stable (andminimal) governmental framework than torisk the possibility that changes ingovernment policy will work against theirinterests. The government has changed therules of the game for blacks in virtuallyevery generation. In light of the historicalunpredictability of government policytowards minorities, it may be significant thatthe most dramatic ascents from poverty toaffluence occurred among groups, such asthe Jews, Chinese and Japanese, which didnot attempt to use political expedients tosecure economic gains.

"At particular historical junctures govern-mental policy may be beneficial to particularethnic groups. It is the long-run reliance onpolitical action that is questionable in viewof the unpredictability of political trends ingeneral ... in politics 'overnight is a lifetime'



of 10

… Whatever the merits or demerits ofparticular government policy, nothing seemssurer from history than that those policieswill change".7

Discrimination: Fair & Unfair

In order to analyse the effects of racialdiscrimination, we must define what is meantby discrimination. Discrimination in the puresense reflects tastes and preferences thatindividuals have and which guide the choicesthat they make. Racial discrimination in themarket-place will occur when someindividuals have a "taste for discrimination",when their preferences are such thatdiscriminatory behaviour toward a particulargroup or person is viewed as a good. Theextent to which the good is consumed willdepend upon its price, which will bedifferent in different types of market.

Sowell points to three types ofdiscriminatory behaviour which may beexhibited in a market.

1. The offering of different transaction termsto individuals differing objectively only bygroup membership, not by any of the criteriacommonly used otherwise.

2. The offering of different transaction terms(including no terms at all) to individualssubjectively perceived as differing in therelevant criteria, but so perceived onlybecause of group membership used as a basisfor presumptions about behaviour.

3. The offering of transaction terms whichdiffer on the average among individuals fromdifferent group backgrounds. Individualsmay be judged honestly and accurately asindividuals but if the groups themselvesdiffer in the relevant criteria, there will bedifferences in results.

Much of the debate over government policytoward blacks centres on whether blacks facediscrimination of the first two types or, of thethird (which is benign).

The debate is in many ways irrelevant.Sowell has shown that the first two typescannot account for the persistently lowincomes of a particular group in acompetitive market. The keystone of his

argument is that the extent of discriminatorybehaviour that actually occurs is dependentupon the penalties or 'opportunity costs'faced by the discriminator. Since there isalways a monetary loss incurred byindulging in racial discrimination in a freemarket, then unless every member of societyhad the same discriminatory preferences(including blacks themselves) the under-utilised or underpaid black labour could beutilised by firms, businesses or individualswho did not share the same taste fordiscrimination. The indulgence indiscriminatory behaviour by a certain groupof people will create profit opportunities forothers (in the case of job markets, thisincludes the option of self- employment). Forthis reason, in a competitive free marketsystem, the costs of racial discrimination arehigher than under practically any otherconceivable arrangement.

" . . . there are costs to the discriminator, aswell as to the victim, and the magnitude ofthose costs affects the extent to whichsubjective prejudices produce overtdiscrimination. Foregone opportunities tomake money - as employer, landlord, seller,lender etc - put a price on discrimination.Economic competition means that the lessdiscriminatory transactors acquire acompetitive advantage, forcing others eitherto reduce their discrimination or to risklosing profits, perhaps even being forced outof business. This, in turn, means that in lesscompetitive situations, economic principleswould predict that more discriminationwould exist, because its costs would beless".9

There is striking empirical confirmation forthis hypothesis. Throughout Americanhistory, the most discriminatory employmentpractices were exhibited wherever marketswere least competitive and the penalties forindulging in racial prejudice were mildest.Public monopolies, unionised industries(especially where minimum wage laws werein effect) and government bureaucracieshave been the most blatantly exclusionary interms of hiring practices.

Discriminatory levels in colleges,universities, and the government itself were,in past eras, greater than in competitiveindustries at the same time. For example, as



of 10

of 1936 there were only three black PhDsemployed by all of the white universities inthe US whereas 300 black chemists alonewere employed by private industry. Ingovernment, blacks were only 1% of nonPostal Civil Service workers in 1930. Aclassic example of discrimination in publicutilities were the railroad occupations, whereblacks were generally over represented in the19th century before federal regulation andwidespread unionisation, and then totallyexcluded from most railroad occupationsafterwards. According to Sowell:

"When railroads were unconstrained profitmaximises, the opportunity cost ofdiscrimination was high. Later, as aregulated utility, high union pay scalescreated a chronic surplus of applicants, andthe costs of discrimination were virtuallyzero". 10

Minimum wage laws have the effect ofpricing out of the market less productiveand/or less experienced workers whileraising the income of incumbentpractitioners. They reduce the cost ofdiscrimination by prohibiting individualsfrom bidding lower than the market wagerate in order to secure a job. The effect ofsuch laws is devastating to a group, likeblacks, who face discrimination and who arecomprised of a disproportionately largenumber of inexperienced or unskilledworkers.

In 1948, when the first minimum wage waslegislated in the US, black teenageunemployment stood adjust under 10% and itwas lower than white teenageunemployment. Today, after nearly 30 yearsof escalating minimum wage rates, blackteenage unemployment has increased by fivetimes and is more than twice as high as whiteteenage unemployment.

It is no wonder that white unions in SouthAfrica have been supporters of minimumwage laws and equal-pay-for-equal-worklaws for blacks. The New York Times reportsthat: "Right wing white unions … havecomplained to the South AfricanGovernment that laws reserving skilled jobsfor whites have broken down and should beabandoned in favour of equal-pay-for-equal-work laws … The conservative building

trades made it clear they were not motivatedby concern for black workers".11

Government licensure is another area wherediscriminatory practices abound. Forexample, the licensing of taxicabs in manymajor cities has created a situation wheregovernment agencies can decide who is ableto operate a cab by either awarding licensesdirectly or by artificially raising their pricethrough limiting their number, whicheffectively puts them beyond the reach ofmost poor people. The taxicab business isone where capital and skill requirements arerelatively low. Yet in New York and Boston,license fees sell for $42,000 and $25,000respectively. The situation is similar in mostother large cities. The percentage of blacksowning and operating taxis is minusculecompared to their relative proportion of thepopulation in these areas. There is oneexception. In Washington D.C. feerequirements are only $200 for anyone whowishes to operate a taxi. As a consequence,black taxicab ownership is very high relativeto the black population there.

Of course, those industries not subjected tocompetition swing most widely in thedirection of the political climate whether it isdiscriminatory or preferential toward aparticular group. It is not surprising that, inthe past 20 years, the government has madegreat strides in hiring and promoting blacks.Nor will it be surprising if in 20 years time,the pendulum swings the other way. It wouldbe devastating if government so dominatedeconomic life that it was able to preventmany black people from finding a livelihood.Perhaps the most striking confirmation of theeffectiveness of the market in penalisingracial discrimination is provided by theexperience of illiterate black sharecroppersin the South following Emancipation. WalterWilliams has noted:

"One need not rely on modern examplesalone of how the free market benefitedblacks. After the Civil War, while there wasmuch hostility towards freemen, historicalevidence shows that black sharecroppers andtenant farmers received the same terms ofexchange from planters that their whitecounterparts received. Attempts of whiteplanters to form a conspiracy against them toprevent the freeman's wages from rising in



of 10

response to market conditions met withfailure".12

What emerges is that:1. Racial discrimination in a marketeconomy will rarely, and certainly not over along period of time, prohibit the advance of agroup subjected to discrimination.

2. Government intervention lowers the costof discrimination and employment lawsprevent individuals from undercutting othersin the market for jobs and this may be thecause of a persistently low socio-economicposition for a particular group.

3. The same approach can be used inanalysing consumer markets and capitalmarkets and similar conclusions concerningthe effects of intervention are obtained.Sowell has produced a mass of evidence tosupport his position in both cases.

Three Black Histories

If racial discrimination and market processescannot account for persistently low blackincomes, the explanation must be soughtelsewhere - in the internal structure of thegroup, and government intervention in themarket. As Sowell has stated:

"Once having waved aside all differencesbetween people ... many social analysts arethen left with no real explanation ofintergroup differences in income,occupation, residential pattern or other socio-economic outcomes. Only evil intentions,discrimination, racisim, "exploitation" - areleft as possible explanations. The generalexistence of sin among human beingsvirtually ensures that examples can alwaysbe found of bad behaviour toward particulargroups. The cause-and-effect question,however, is: to what extent are the variousgroups' economic conditions a function ofothers' sin?". 13

Before proceeding any further, one basicmyth must be dispelled. The myth consists inan exaggeration of the extent to which blacksfall behind the rest of the population inaverage income. Black families earn 62% ofthe national average income. However,certain subgroups within the blackpopulation actually earn more than the

national average income. When comparingaverage incomes of various groups we areconfronted by a heterogeneous array ofincome characteristics. The 'national average'is not something that represents a norm inany way, rather it is a statistical artefactarrived at by aggregating all of the variouscategories.

Moreover, when adjustments are made forstatistical categories such as age, occupation,education, quality of education andgeographical distribution, the disparities inincome between low income ethnic groupsand the national average declines. Forexample, the median age of a JewishAmerican person is 46, that for a black is 22.We would expect the average incomes ofJews to be higher than blacks even if blackswere by and large more economicallysuccessful than Jews - a person will earnmore when he/she is middle aged than whenhe/she is at the beginning of his/her workinglife. In fact, when adjustments are made forage and other factors, the income disparitiesare greatly reduced.

Income disparities do still remain and Sowellhas offered an explanation as to why theyremain and also why different subgroups ofthe black population - West Indianimmigrants and descendants of Free Personsof Colour - do uniformly better economicallythan other blacks.

Sowell has divided the black population intothree subgroups: American Negroes (i.e.descendants of American slaves), WestIndian immigrants and descendants of FreePersons of Colour. He claims that differencesin their current performances can be traced todifferent cultures and historical experiences.In more general terms, Sowell hasinterpreted the experience and performancesof all of the various ethnic groups inAmerica as crucially influenced by theirparticular historical backgrounds. He reasonsthat individuals optimise their behaviourrelative to their environment and when theenvironment is changed and the criteria foroptimal behaviour altered, individuals willadjust their behaviour accordingly. However,groups will adjust at different ratesdepending upon how closely their previousenvironment approximated thecharacteristics of the new environment.



of 10

Thus, among those groups that migrated tothe urban centres in the US, those - notablyJews - who had lived in urban settings forgenerations abroad, made progress inAmerica relatively quickly. Other groups,like the Irish and the descendants of theemancipated American Negro slaves, whomigrated from rural areas, where they werein a caste position from which no oneexpected them to rise, without an intellectualtradition or commercial experience, foundthe transition to an urban environmenttraumatic. Such groups tended to rise moreslowly than others.

American Negro Slaves

The largest component of the AmericanNegro population has consisted of thoseblacks emancipated by the Civil War andtheir descendants.

This group arrived in America as slaves untilemancipation in 1863. The main devicesused to control the slave population wereforms of psychological domination. Theslave owners didn't have the military meansto dominate the slaves by force of armsalone. This meant that any demonstration ofinitiative or individual responsibility on thepart of the slave population wassystematically deterred by threat ofpunishment (or worse) from slave masters.One result was that blacks were ill-equippedfor independent economic existencefollowing Emancipation.

Yet when the economic progress of freedmen and their descendants, relative to wherethey started from, is compared to theprogress made by other groups, the blacks donot fare so poorly. It has been only twogenerations since blacks began a large-scaleimmigration out of the rural south to theurban north, and when their progress in theurban centres is compared with the progressof other immigrant groups from similarbackgrounds, blacks seem to be doing noworse than any of the others:

"The incidence of poverty, crime, disease,broken homes and substandard educationalperformance among blacks follows a well-established pattern among Americanminority groups, beginning with the

European immigrant groups of the 19thcentury".14

Free Persons of Colour

The legally free Negroes constituted 10-14% of the black population in the US beforeEmancipation. Many of them weredescendants of slaves who had been freed bytheir masters. This group, whose veryexistence posed a threat to the slave systemin the south, were systematically expelledfrom the regions where slavery was mostprevalent. They tended to migrate - oftenunder threat of force rather than preference -to urban and northern regions. Hence, whilethe slave population was overwhelminglyrural and illiterate, the Free Persons ofColour were urban and, relative to the slavepopulation, highly literate. It is not surprisingthat the descendants of the Free Persons ofColour have done far better than otherblacks. Sowell points out that:

"Much of the later cultural contrasts betweenthe established Negro elite and the underprepared black migrants to the cities had itsorigins in this difference between theirrespective ancestors. Many of theoutstanding Negroes of the post-Civil Warperiod and early 20th century weredescendants of Free Persons of Colour.Whites who pointed to these individualsuccesses and asked 'Why can't the others doit?' were usually unaware that the otherblacks were at an entirely different point intheir social evolution".15

West Indian Immigrants

Since the Second World War there has beena large migration of West Indian Negroesinto the US, almost all having arrived inabject poverty. Yet West Indian Negroes inthe US have long had higher incomes, moreeducation, higher occupational status andproportionately far more business ownershipthan American Negroes. Both their fertilityrates and their crime rates have been lowerthan those of native blacks.

The different backgrounds of the WestIndians makes them a test case of theexplanatory power of colour, as such, inanalysing socio-economic progress inAmerica, as opposed to the cultural traditions



of 10

of the American Negro. Their history alsoprovides a test of beliefs of particular aspectsof slavery which constitute the mostcrippling continuing handicaps as far associo-economic advancement is concerned.

Some people have argued that slavery is acause of the current low incomes of blacks,but West Indian Negroes experienced a morebrutal form of slavery than did AmericanNegroes. Some have argued that employerscan spot those blacks who are from the WestIndies because they have distinguishingaccents and that the West Indian blacks arebetter educated than native blacks because ofthe superiority of the British educationalsystem and are more desirable employees tohave. However, if we isolate secondgeneration West Indian immigrants, whohave no externally distinguishingcharacteristics and who were educated in theAmerican school system, we find that secondgeneration West Indians have higherincomes than Anglo-Saxons, and a higherpercentage of people in the professions.

The explanation of biological differences(white ancestry) such as have been invokedto explain the greater achievement ofmulattos, cannot apply here, for West IndianNegroes have a higher proportion of Africanancestry than American Negroes. Neitherdiscrimination nor genetics can offer anyobvious explanation for the very differentincome and occupational achievementsbetween West Indian and other Negroes.'Selective immigration' has sometimes beenoffered as an explanation - assuming that themore able people migrate to the US.However, this explanation doesn't withstandscrutiny.

The magnitude of outmigration from theWest Indies to various parts of the world isso great that 'selective' is hardly anappropriate description. Moreover, the small,better educated, high-income elite of theWest Indies is overwhelmingly either whiteor mulatto and these groups don't migrate.

Sowell claims that the particular form ofslavery in the West Indies better prepared thedescendants of those released from bondageto succeed in an urban commercialenvironment.

Owing to the disproportionately smallnumber of whites in the West Indies and thegeneral impoverishment of the islands, theslave system differed from that in the US inways which proved crucial to the futureeconomic advance of the West Indians whomigrated to America:

1. Slave escapes and rebellions were morefeasible in the West Indies because of thenumerical superiority of the slaves and,therefore, the slaves weren't psychologicallycrushed by a sense of the futility ofresistance to whites.

2. The West Indian plantation couldn't drawupon a larger white society for its economicneeds and, in fact, members of the enslavedblack population grew their own foodindividually and sold their surplus on theopen market. Slaves were assigned privateplots to grow their own food, so WestIndians had generations of experience ofindividual rewards for individual efforts, atleast in a part of their lives, and someexperience of managing their own affairs.

3. The virtual absence of a white workingclass guaranteed that blacks in the WestIndies couldn't be restricted to the mostmenial jobs as were blacks in the US, ormany of the more skilled and responsiblepositions would have gone unfilled.

Sowell observes that:

"The history of West Indian blacks inAmerica suggests that what was mostmorally reprehensible about slavery -brutality, overwork, sexual exploitation -may have been less causally important asfactors in later group development than suchfeatures as regimented dependence (faced byAmerican slaves) as contrasted witheconomic incentives and marketincentives".16

Sowell's careful separation of scientificanalysis from moral indignation, and hisremarkable honesty and courage in the teethof conventional dogmas17, have enabled himto produce a well-reasoned case for alibertarian approach to community relations.He has mustered a lot of solid evidence toshow: 1) that hostile discrimination is notvery effective at holding back particular



of 10

groups; 2) that, nonetheless, well-intentioned legislation like minimum wagelaws, rent control and state welfare paymentsdo have some injurious consequences forgroups like US blacks; 3) that geneticexplanations for the fortunes of differentgroups are not very convincing whenconsidered in context; 4) that much of therelative position of a group can be explainedby its own internal characteristics, which inturn owe a lot to the group's institutionalhistory; and 5) that disadvantaged groupsgenerally progress best in a free market.

1. Thomas Sowell, Race and Economics, pv.2. Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, p97.3. Ibid, pp98-99.4. Ibid, p343.5. Sowell, Race and Economics, p 134.6. Sowell, Markets and Minorities, p81.7. Ibid, p 124.8. Ibid, pp 19-20.9. Ibid, p26.10. Ibid, p48.11. New York Times, quoted in PolicyReview, Autumn 1977, p17.12. Ibid, p29.13. Sowell, Markets and Minorities, p 126.14. "Three Black Histories" in Sowell (ed),Essays and Data on American Ethic Groups,p3915. Ibid, p11.16. Ibid.17. For a gripping autobiographicalfragment, see Sowell, Black Education:Myths and Tragedies.

a scientific approach sowell has labelled this attitude ... · vol 3 no 4 a scientific approach to...

Documents