IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-735081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seeing Through Color Blindness: Social Networks as a Mechanism for Discrimination

Author

Listed:
  • Chika O. Okafor

Abstract

I study labor markets in which firms both hire via referrals and are race blind or color-blind. I develop an employment model showing that despite initial equality in ability, employment, wages, and network structure, minorities receive disproportionately fewer jobs through referrals and lower expected wages, simply because their social group is smaller. This discriminatory outcome, which I term “social network discrimination,” arises from homophily and falls outside the dominant economics discrimination models, which are taste based and statistical. I calibrate the model using a nationally representative sample of youth networks to estimate the lower bound welfare gap caused by social network discrimination, which also disadvantages black workers. This paper isolates a potential underlying mechanism for inequality, adding to the understanding of labor-market disparities that have been widely studied across the social sciences. In doing so, the paper disproves the proposition that color-blind policies inherently promote individual merit.

Suggested Citation

  • Chika O. Okafor, 2025. "Seeing Through Color Blindness: Social Networks as a Mechanism for Discrimination," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(3), pages 519-560.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/735081
    DOI: 10.1086/735081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/735081
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/735081
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/735081?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/735081. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.