Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

“Soft” Affirmative Action and Minority Recruitment†

“Soft” Affirmative Action and Minority Recruitment† AbstractWe study search, evaluation, and selection of candidates of unknown quality for a position. We examine the effects of “soft” affirmative action policies increasing the relative percentage of minority candidates in the candidate pool. We show that, while meant to encourage minority hiring, such policies may backfire if the evaluation of minority candidates is noisier than that of nonminorities. This may occur even if minorities are at least as qualified and as valuable as nonminorities. The results provide a possible explanation for why certain soft affirmative action policies have proved counterproductive, even in the absence of (implicit) bias. (JEL J15, J23, J24, M51) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Economic Review Insights American Economic Association

“Soft” Affirmative Action and Minority Recruitment†

“Soft” Affirmative Action and Minority Recruitment†

AER: Insights 2021, 3(1): 1–18 https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20200196 By Daniel Fershtman and Alessandro Pavan* We study search, evaluation, and selection of candidates of unknown quality for a position. We examine the effects of “soft” affirmative action policies increasing the relative percentage of minority can- didates in the candidate pool. We show that, while meant to encour- age minority hiring, such policies may backfire if the evaluation of minority candidates is noisier than that of nonminorities. This may occur even if minorities are at least as qualified and as valuable as nonminorities. The results provide a possible explanation for why certain soft affirmative action policies have proved counterproduc- tive, even in the absence of (implicit) bias. (JEL J15, J23, J24, M51) In 2003, the National Football League established the “Rooney rule,” a policy This requiring teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching vacancies. is an exam- policy, versions of which have been applied across various industries, ple of “soft” affirmative action (SAA), a term used to refer to policies designed to change the composition of the candidate pool rather than the criteria used during the hiring process. Contrary to “hard” affirmative action requiring direct consideration of minority status as a part of the hiring decision (e.g., employment quotas), such policies involve taking steps to increase the share of minority candidates considered for a position but subsequently treating candidates impartially (Schuck 2002). This paper studies the effects of SAA on minority recruitment. Indeed, while some SAA policies have proved successful (Heilman 1980), others, such as the Rooney rule, have been deemed ineffective, or even counterproductive. One possi- ble explanation is the presence of implicit bias. We show that even in the absence of bias, SAA policies, while meant to increase the likelihood of hiring...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-economic-association/soft-affirmative-action-and-minority-recruitment-J0af6mrOoL

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Economic Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 © American Economic Association
ISSN
2640-205X
eISSN
2640-2068
DOI
10.1257/aeri.20200196
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractWe study search, evaluation, and selection of candidates of unknown quality for a position. We examine the effects of “soft” affirmative action policies increasing the relative percentage of minority candidates in the candidate pool. We show that, while meant to encourage minority hiring, such policies may backfire if the evaluation of minority candidates is noisier than that of nonminorities. This may occur even if minorities are at least as qualified and as valuable as nonminorities. The results provide a possible explanation for why certain soft affirmative action policies have proved counterproductive, even in the absence of (implicit) bias. (JEL J15, J23, J24, M51)

Journal

American Economic Review InsightsAmerican Economic Association

Published: Mar 1, 2021

There are no references for this article.