SUP205: Inequality and Social Policy
Professor Devah Pager
Office: 444 Taubman
Email: devah_pager@havard.edu
Classroom: RG-20
Tuesday/Thursday 11:40-1pm
Overview
This course will explore the research on social inequality and its application in social
policy. Emphasis will be placed on institutions that mediate the transmission and
reproduction of inequality, including families, schools, neighborhoods, labor markets, the
welfare system, and the criminal justice system. Following a series of introductory
lectures, the first lecture of each week will present an overview of the topic, empirical
trends, and relevant research. The second class of each week will feature “policy panels”
in which students will present on relevant policy applications related to the topic under
discussion. The final two weeks of the semester will be reserved for group presentations
in which students will work together to design an original module related to the study of
inequality and social policy.
Assignments
Reaction Papers:
Students will be responsible for writing six reaction papers on the week’s readings.
Reaction papers should be 1 to 2 single-spaced pages and should offer (1) a concise
summary of the major arguments in that week’s readings; (2) a critical evaluation of the
readings, including a discussion of limitations in the research; (3) a short statement about
policy implications. Reaction papers will be graded on a check, check-plus, check-minus
standard. A check responds thoughtfully to the assignment; a check-plus shows
unique/exemplary insight in its reflection and critique; a check-minus has one or more
serious problems or shows little effort. Papers should be posted to the Course Pages site
(specific location TBA) by noon Monday of the relevant week.
Policy Panels:
Each student will sign up for one policy panel during the semester. Students will be
expected to select, research, and present on a specific policy intervention related to the
topic under study. For example, in the week on K-12 schooling, one might focus on
policies related to improving teacher quality, reducing class size, or providing financial
incentives to students to improve achievement. Any policy is fair game as long as there is
sufficient documentation of its implementation and effects. Each student will have
roughly 15 minutes to present on their selected policy intervention. Presentations should
include discussion of: What was the goal of this policy? How was the intervention
informed by the issues raised in the relevant research? How has this intervention been
evaluated and what are strengths and weaknesses of the design? What are the effects of
this policy intervention and what conclusions can be drawn? What political
1
considerations are relevant to adopting this policy approach? What gaps in our
knowledge remain in this area?
Students are welcome to choose policy applications from U.S. or international contexts.
Students are encouraged to choose policy interventions that have been subjected to
rigorous evaluation. If the evaluation literature is weak, provide a critique of the existing
studies and a proposal for a more rigorous evaluation.
In addition to the 15 minute presentation, students are expected to submit a written
version of their policy brief by noon on the Wednesday before their presentation. Briefs
should be posted to the Course Page (specific location TBA). These briefs should be 2 to
4 single-spaced pages. They should concisely cover each of the points above. See the
policy brief by Gordon Berlin and James Riccio, “Paying for Good Behavior,” as an
example.
At the end of each policy panel, audience members will be asked to vote on the allocation
of $20 million dollars to reduce inequality in the area under study. Students can vote to
allocate all resource for one policy intervention; to divide the policy dollars across
several approaches; or to allocate the money to continued research on more effective
approaches.
Group Projects:
Any one course cannot possibly cover all the relevant topics one might want to learn
about. The final group project gives students an opportunity to delve into a relevant topic
that has not been directly covered in class. Examples of appropriate topics include:
Inequality in Health and Healthcare; Inequality and the Great Recession; Immigration
and Inequality; International Perspectives on Inequality. Students will work together in
small groups to design a course module that should include: (1) a clear statement of the
topic to be investigated; (2) a synthetic overview of key research; and (3) a discussion of
one or more policy interventions related to this issue, with attention to the quality of
evidence for any policy impact. The module will be presented in the form of a 10 page
(single-spaced) written report and a 20 minute oral presentation. Students should sign up
for groups no later than Monday, March 3rd and should have chosen a topic no later than
Monday, March 10th.
Grading:
Course grades will be based on the following components:
Reaction papers:
25%
Policy brief:
30% (half oral, half written)
Group project
30% (half oral, half written)
Class participation
15%
Class participation will be judged by a combination of quantity and quality. Credit for
quantity will max out at 7.5% of the overall course grade, after which improvements (the
remaining 7.5%) can only be based on quality of contributions.
2
Week 1 – Introduction to the Study of Inequality and Social Policy
This week’s lectures and readings consider a number of dilemmas in the study of
inequality: Why has inequality grown? How does inequality in the U.S. compare to other
wealthy nations? Should we be concerned about rising inequality? What dimensions of
inequality matter and why?
January 28: What do we know about inequality?
January 30: Is Inequality a problem?
The White House. 2013. “Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility.”
Jencks, Christopher. 2002. “Does Inequality Matter?” Daedalus 131: 49-65.
Sen, Amartya. 2008. “From Income Inequality to Economic Inequality.” In Grusky,
David, Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological
Perspective.
Smeeding, T. 2006. “Poor people in rich nations: The United States in comparative
perspective.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20:69–90.
Week 2 – Racial Inequality and Discrimination
This week’s lectures and readings consider trends in racial and ethnic inequality. We will
consider a range of historical, structural, and cultural explanations for persistent racial
inequality. A second lecture will focus on the particular role of discrimination in shaping
contemporary patterns of racial inequality.
February 4: Racial Inequality
February 6: Discrimination
Wilson, William Julius. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race, ch.7.
Pager, Devah, Bruce Western, and Bart Bonikowski. 2009. “Discrimination in a Low
Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment.” American Sociological Review.
Sunstein, Cass. 1991. “Why Markets Don’t Stop Discrimination.” Social Philosophy
and Policy.
Steinberg, Stephen. 1981. “Ethnic Heroes and Racial Villains in American Social
Science” Pp.263-302 in The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in America.
New York: Atheneum.
Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented
Assimilation and its Variants Among Post-1965 Immigrant Youth.” The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 530:74-96.
3
Week 3 – Gender and Class
This week’s lectures and readings will consider the role of gender and class in shaping
inequality. Together, race, gender, and class represent key axes of inequality, though each
with its own trajectory and significance. We will consider gender inequality in
households and labor markets. We will consider class inequality as it is shaped across
generations.
February 11: Gender inequality
February 13: Class and mobility
Correll. 2004. "Constraints into preferences: Gender, status and emerging career
aspirations." American Sociological Review: 69: 93-113.
Kelly, Erin, Phyllis Moen, and Eric Tranby. 2011. “Changing Workplaces to Reduce
Work-Family Conflict: Schedule Control in a White-Collar Organization.”
American Sociological Review 76:265.
Brines, Julie. 1994. "Economic Dependency, Gender, and the Division of Labor at
Home." American Journal of Sociology 100(3): 652-689.
Lareau. 2002. “Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Parenting in White and Black
Families.” American Sociological Review
Massey, Douglas S. 1996. “The Age of Extremes: Concentrated Affluence and
Poverty in the Twenty-First Century.” Demography 33(4):395-412
Week 4 – Families
This week will focus on the role of the family in producing and reproducing inequalities.
Families shape children’s life chances in multiple ways throughout the life course,
providing important social, cognitive, and material resources for child development. We
will discuss recent trends in family structure and their implications for rising inequality.
February 18: Inequality in American Families
February 20: Policy Panel
Cherlin, 2005. “American Marriage in the Early Twenty First Century.” Future of
Children 15 (2).
Oppenheimer, Kalmijn & Lim, 1997. “Men’s Career Development and Marriage
Timing During a Period of Rising Inequality.” Demography 34, 311-330
Akerloff, Yellen & Katz 1996. “An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the
United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 277-317.
Anna Gassman-Pines & Hirokazu Yoshikawa. 2006. “Five-Year Effects of an AntiPoverty Program on Marriage among Never-Married Mothers.” JAPPAM 25, 11–
30.
McLanahan, Amato, & Furstenberg 2007 “Should Government Promote Marriage?”
JAPPAM, 26, 4: 951-964.
4
Week 5 – Schools (K-12)
February 25: Educational inequality
February 27: Policy Panel
This week will focus on the role of schools in reducing or reproducing inequalities. We
will consider how race, class, and gender shape schooling trajectories and how
educational policy may be targeted to mitigate key disparities.
Reardon. 2012 “The Widening Academic-Achievement Gap between the Rich and
the Poor.” In Murnane & Duncan (eds.) Whither Opportunity. Russell Sage
Foundation
Alexander, Entwisle & Olson. 2007. “Lasting Consequences of the Summer Learning
Gap.” American Sociological Review. 72:167-180.
DiPrete, Thomas and Jennifer Jennings. 2012. “Social and Behavioral Skills and the
Gender Gap in Early Educational Achievement.” Social Science Research.
Heckman, “Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged
Children.” Science.
Curot, Vilsa E. Roland Fryer, and Meghan L. Howard. 2012. “It May Not Take a
Village: Increasing Achievement among the Poor.” Ch.23 in Murnane & Duncan
(eds.) Whither Opportunity. Russell Sage Foundation
Week 6 – Higher education
This week will consider the unique role that colleges and universities play in the
transmission of inequality. How does higher education mediate inequality by race,
gender, and class? How might we rethink social policy in ways that could better address
the problems of rising inequality in access to college?
March 4: Inequality in Higher Education
March 6: Policy Panel
Hout, Michael. Rationing Opportunities: How America’s Colleges and Universities
are Failing. Ch1&2.
Haveman, Robert and Timothy Smeeding. 2006. “The Role of Higher Education in
Social Mobility.” The Future of Children.
Alon & Tienda. 2007. “Diversity, Opportunity and the Shifting Meritocracy in Higher
Education.” American Sociological Review, 72(4): 487-511.
Espenshade & Chung. 2005. “The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at
Elite Universities.” Social Science Quarterly.
Perry, Marc. 2013. “A Star MOOC Professor Defects – at Least for Now.” The
Chronicle of Higher Education.
5
Week 7 – Neighborhoods
This week will focus on the role of neighborhoods in producing and reproducing
inequalities. In his book The Truly Disadvantaged, William Julius Wilson argued that
changes in neighborhood conditions during the 1970s and 1980s led to increases in social
disorganization and reductions in children’s life chances. This book stimulated several
theoretical critiques as well as large body of empirical research aimed at identifying
neighborhoods conditions that mattered, and, more recently, whether neighborhoods have
a causal effect on life chances.
March 11: Neighborhood Inequality
March 13: Policy Panel
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Pp. 20-62.
Sharkey, P. (2010). “The Acute Effect of Local Homicides on Children's Cognitive
Performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 107(26), 11733-11738.
Clampet-Lundquist & Massey. 2008. “Neighborhood Effects: A Reconsideration.”
American Journal of Sociology.
Ludwig et al. 2008. “What Can We Learn about Neighborhood Effects from the MTO
Experiment?” American Journal of Sociology.
Sampson. 2008. “Moving to Inequality: Neighborhood effects and experiments meet
social structure.” American Journal of Sociology
*** SPRING BREAK: NO CLASS MARCH 15-23***
Week 8 – Labor Markets
This week will focus on labor market structures and how they affect inequality. The
readings this week investigate (1) structural shifts in the labor markets and their
consequences for employment inequality; and (2) distortions in labor market outcomes
produced by social relations (e.g., networks) and social divisions (e.g., race/ethnicity).
March 25: Labor Market Inequality
March 27: Policy Panel
Morris, Martina & Bruce Western. 1999. “Inequality in Earnings at the Close of the
Twentieth Century.” Annual Review of Sociology.
DiPrete, Thomas, Gregory M. Eirich, Matthew Pittinsky. 2010. “Compensation,
Benchmarking, Leapfrogs, and the Surge in Executive Pay.” American Journal of
Sociology.
Waldinger, Roger and Michael Lichter. 2003. How the Other Half Works. Chapters 6
& 9.
6
Kalev, Alexandra, Frank Dobbin, & Erin Kelly. 2006. “Best Practices or Best
Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity
Policies.” American Sociological Review.
Week 9 – Public Assistance and Welfare
This week considers dilemmas in the provision of public assistance. Does welfare foster
dependency or does it support independence? How has public assistance changed since
welfare reform in the 1990s? How might we structure public assistance in ways that
promote economic self-sufficiency while providing a meaningful safety net?
April 1: Welfare and Inequality
April 3: Policy Panel
Ellwood, David. 1988. “Values and the Helping Conundrum.” Pp14-44 in Ellwood,
David. Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family.
Soss, Joe, Richard Fording, and Sanford F. Schram. 2011. "Race and the Local
Politics of Punishment in the New World of Welfare." American Journal of
Sociology. 116(5): 1610-57.
Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. “The Choice Between Welfare and Work.” Pp.
218-235 in Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and LowWage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
H. Luke Shaefer and Kathryn Edin. 2013. “Extreme Poverty in the United States,
1996 to 2011.” Michigan National Poverty Center Policy Brief #28.
Berlin, Gordon. 2007. “Rewarding the work of Individuals: A Counterintuitive
Approach to Reducing Poverty and Strengthening Families.” Future of Children.
Week 10 – Penal Institutions
This week will focus on how the criminal justice system affects inequality. The rate of
incarceration has increased more than five-fold over the past three decades, with more
than 2 million people currently behind bars and more than 700,000 being released from
prison each year. Readings for this week focus on the consequences of incarceration for
labor market outcomes, political participation, and family and community stability.
April 8: Punishment and Inequality
April 10: Policy Panel
Western & Beckett. 1999. “How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor Market? The Penal
System as a Labor Market Institution.” American Journal of Sociology 104(4):
1030-60
Uggen and Manza. 2002. “Democratic Contradiction? The Political Consequences of
Felon Disfranchisement in the United States.” American Sociological Review
67(6): 777-803.
7
Goffman. 2009. “On the Run: Perspectives on the Social Situation of Wanted Black
Men in a Philadelphia Ghetto.” American Sociological Review.
Harris, Evans, & Beckett. 2010. “Drawing Blood from Stones: Legal Debt and Social
Inequality in the Contemporary United States.” American Sociological Review
115(6): 1753-99.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. “The Effects of Parental
Incarceration on Children.” Ch.4 in Incarceration and the Family: A Review of
Research and Promising Approaches for Serving Fathers and Families.
Week 11 – Politics of Inequality
This week will focus on the relationship between inequality and politics. How does social
inequality affect representation in the political process? And, in turn, how does political
representation affect processes of inequality? To what extent does partisanship affect the
extent and nature of inequality? These questions and more will form the basis of our
discussion this week.
April 15: Politics and Inequality
April 17: Policy Panel
Bartels, Larry. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New
Guilded Age. Ch.2.
Gilens, Martin. 2005. "Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness." Public Opinion
Quarterly 69(5):778-896.
Carnes, Nick. 2012. "Does the Numerical Underrepresentation of the Working Class
in Congress Matter?" Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(1):5-34.
Butler, Daniel and David Broockman. 2009. "Who Helps DeShawn Register to Vote?
A Field Experiment on State Legislators." Working Paper.
Beaman, Lori et al. 2012. "Female Leadership Raises Aspirations and Educational
Attainment for Girls: A Policy Experiment in India." Science 335(6068):582-586.
Weeks 12 (April 22, 24) & 13 (April 29, May 1) – Group Presentations
8