Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/33452
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMyers, Caitlin Knowlesen_US
dc.date.accessioned2005-10-14en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-07-07T09:11:55Z-
dc.date.available2010-07-07T09:11:55Z-
dc.date.issued2005en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/33452-
dc.description.abstractProposition 209, enacted in California in 1996 and made effective the following year, ended state affirmative action programs not only in education, but also for public employment and government contracting. This paper uses CPS data and triple difference techniques to take advantage of the natural experiment presented by this change in state law to gauge the labor market impacts of ending affirmative action programs. Employment among women and minorities dropped sharply, a change that was nearly completely explained by a decline in participation rather than by increases in unemployment. This decline suggests that either affirmative action programs in California had been inefficient or that they failed to create lasting change in prejudicial attitudes.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisher|aInstitute for the Study of Labor (IZA) |cBonnen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries|aIZA Discussion Papers |x1674en_US
dc.subject.jelJ71en_US
dc.subject.jelJ78en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.keywordeconomics of gender and minoritiesen_US
dc.subject.keywordaffirmative actionen_US
dc.subject.keywordProposition 209en_US
dc.subject.keyworddiscriminationen_US
dc.titleA cure for discrimination? Affirmative action and the case of California Proposition 209en_US
dc.type|aWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn501149112en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen-

Files in This Item:
File
Size
267.16 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.