Politics synthetic essay

Previous chapters of this volume have explored the role of social and economic networks, labor market structure, entrepreneurship, and segregation as influences on the social mobility of ethnic and racial minorities. This final section of the book adds a factor typically lacking from studies of social mobility, the influence of political institutions and mobilization. Because of this traditional absence, we begin by explaining how and why political factors might be expected to be relevant to our inquiry. We then set the stage for the chapters that follow by examining the important structural, historical, and institutional differences between the two cases, while also laying out the basic contours of public policy in the two countries. We conclude by briefly relating the specific arguments of the papers to the approach of the book as a whole.

Why politics?

On one level, the answer to “why examine politics” is obvious. In the two countries under study, around a third of national resources flow directly through the government, and a substantial percentage of what is left is influenced by patterns of regulation. State institutions determine patterns of policing and the extent of incarceration. They operate redistributive benefit systems, administer public housing, enforce anti-discrimination laws, and run extensive systems for public health. They operate schools and social services, encourage (or discourage) economic growth, regulate labor markets, and direct the shape and character of urban development. They shape patterns of migration, influencing both the number, character, and timing of immigration.