Economics The allocation of scarce resources among competing uses. What are the scarce resources?
Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline of ...
Transcript of Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline of ...
American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90
DOI: 10.5923/j.sociology.20160603.03
Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline of
Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000
Cedric Herring
Language, Literacy, and Culture PhD Program, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Maryland, USA
Abstract Recent studies of male marriageability have placed the topic within the context of the dramatic structural
changes that have occurred within the U.S. industrial economy. This study seeks to determine the relative impact of
demographic and social factors on racial and ethnic differences in marital patterns for men between 1980 and 2000. It
employs a ―population and structural change‖ perspective and data from the Current Population Surveys to assess the impact
of the interaction of demographic and social variables on marital patterns for black, white, Latino and other males in the
United States. The results show that during the 1980s, the proportions of unmarriageable males grew more rapidly among
racial and ethnic groups with the lowest percentages of unmarriageable bachelors. Also, the proportion of college-educated
black and Latino males who were unwilling to marry surpassed the proportion of college-educated white males who chose to
remain single. The implications of the findings for patterns of marriage and family structure in the U.S. are discussed.
Keywords Race, Employment Discrimination, Diversity, Marriage
1. Introduction
One of the most significant and recurring themes in the
area of racial and ethnic inequality is that of differential
marital patterns by race. Several studies have searched for
the link between male joblessness and marital status (e.g.,
Wilson and Neckerman, 1986; Sampson, 1987; Wilson,
1987; Henderson and Herring, 2013). Generally, these
studies have focused on the differences in the pools of
eligible males from which females choose prospective
mates (Spanier and Glick 1980; Lichter, LeClere, and
McLaughlin 1991; Henderson and Herring, 2013). They
have noted that over the past several decades, the ratio of
employed black men to the population of young women has
declined significantly. The decline in the pool of
―marriageable‖ (i.e., employed) black males is the major
reason for changes in the black family (Wilson 1987, 1996;
and Henderson, 2009). More recently, studies have linked
the issue of black male marriageability to changes in the
economic options of black females, the growth of black
female-headed households, and changes in the industrial
economy (Wilson 1987; South 1991; Lichter, McLaughlin,
Kephart and Landry 1992; Henderson, 2013). Still, social
scientists have not adequately articulated how demographic
and social variables interact over time to produce
differences in marital patterns for various racial and ethnic
* Corresponding author:
[email protected] (Cedric Herring)
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/sociology
Copyright © 2016 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved
males. Moreover, they have not sufficiently explored the
possibility that declines in marriage reflect declining
preferences for marriage among eligible bachelors as well
as decreases in the proportion of marriageable males
because of a deteriorating labor market.
This study seeks to determine the relative impact of
demographic and social factors on racial and ethnic
differences in marital patterns for men in the United States
at the turn of the 21st Century. Specifically, the objectives
of this study are to: (1) articulate a theoretical perspective
that explains how demographic and social forces interact to
produce racial and ethnic differentials in male
marriageability; (2) compare patterns in marriage between
blacks, whites, Latinos and other racial/ethnic groups; (3)
examine the impact of preferences for bachelorhood on
male marital patterns for all racial/ethnic groups; and (4)
assess the change in these patterns for all men between
1980 and 2000.
2. Disadvantage, Demography, and Marriageability
Several studies have examined the connection between
male joblessness and marriage (e.g., Becker 1973, 1974,
1981; Wilson and Neckerman, 1986; Ellwood and Crane,
1991; Herring, 2013; Rockquemore and Henderson, 2015).
Some of the leading works along these lines have suggested
that the decline in the pool of marriageable black males is the
main reason for changes in the black family structure. Becker
(1981), for example, argues that marriage is attractive only if
one party (traditionally the male) has a comparative
American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90 75
advantage in generating income from the labor market.
When the relative availability of ―marriageable‖ (i.e.,
employed) men is in short supply, a larger percentage of
marriageable men than women must marry for there to be
balance in the marriage market. This has serious implications
for marital dynamics and patterns. Any worsening of the
labor market position of men would produce more jobless
men. This in turn would tend to make men less attractive as
potential spouses since their possible wives would stand to
gain less from such couplings. At the same time, such
scarcity of marriageable males would make those men with
employment even more attractive, better positioned to take
advantage of their comparative advantage in the labor market,
and ironically less willing to marry without there being a
greater share of the gains from the marital trade. In other
words, worsening labor market conditions for men also make
it less likely that marriageable bachelors will marry.
The concept of marriageability was reintroduced to the
debate on racial inequality by Wilson (1987). Wilson (1987)
defined a marriageable male as one who is both single and
employed. Linking black male unemployment to the
transformation in the American industrial economy, he went
on to note that the dearth of marriageable males was
associated with the rise in female-headed
households-particularly in the central city areas.
Wilson and Neckerman (1986) argued that it is the decline
in the pool of marriageable black males that is the main cause
of changes in the black family. They showed that declines in
the sex ratio for blacks mirrored declines in their marriage
rates in the 1970s and the 1980s. Others using this basic
framework have found support for this male marriageability
hypothesis (e.g., Sampson, 1987; Testa, Astone, Krogh, and
Neckerman, 1989; Bennett, Bloom, and Craig, 1989;
Thomas, Herring, and Horton, 1994; Henderson, 2015a;
Henderson, 2015b).
Despite the significant advancement that the concept of
marriageability represents, there are limitations in the
manner in which it has been operationalized and
implemented in research (Horton and Burgess 1992).
Specifically, the concept does not adequately address the
impact of underemployment (especially poverty wage
employment) on racial differentials in marriageability
(Lichter 1988). Moreover, implicit in the current usage of the
term is the assumption that declines in marriage is
specifically attributable to a rise in the number of blacks of
lower socioeconomic status and in the central city areas
(Wilson 1987). Research has not fully appreciated the
possibility that there have been dramatic declines in marriage
among those who are not poor and/or unemployed. Some of
the decline in the proportion of married men may be
attributable to increases in the number of men who prefer to
stay single. Relatedly, the research and debates have focused
almost exclusively on blacks and whites. Few researchers
have paid attention to the implications of dramatic
demographic changes in the Latino and other racial and
ethnic minority communities for male marital patterns. Most
importantly, the concept of marriageability ignores the
broader demographic forces that have a bearing on male
marital patterns.
Racial differences in marriage patterns have been noted by
demographers for some time (Bianchi and Farley 1979;
Spanier and Glick 1980; Bianchi 1981; Farley and Allen
1987; Bennett, Bloom, and Craig 1989; Landale and Tolnay
1991; Qian and Preston 1993; Morgan, McDaniel, Miller,
and Preston 1993; Ruggles 1994; Herring and Henderson,
2015; Herring and Henderson, 2016). Placed in the context
of the general trends on the American family in the
post-World War II era, there have been parallels and some
convergent trends of marriage, divorce, and cohabitation
(Glick 1988; Cherlin 1990; Herring, Horton, and Thomas,
1993; Herring, and Wilson-Sadberry, 1993). Bianchi (1981)
noted the relationship between female-headed households
and racial inequality. Cherlin (1990) cited the extended
family network and cultural adaptation as partial
explanations for the differences in black and white patterns
of marriage and family formation. Landale and Tolnay (1991)
argued that the system of stratification must be considered
when examining differences in marital timing by race.
One disadvantage of prior studies on black male marital
patterns has been the absence of an explicit theoretical
framework. The general trend has been to analyze Black
male marital patterns in isolation from racial discrimination
(Lichter et al. 1992) and apart from tastes for marital statuses.
In addition, the linkage between Black male marriageability
and the increasing marginalization of workers from other
racial groups tends to be ignored (Lieberson 1980). Thus,
detailed analyses of the demographic and social
characteristics of the population of marriageable males of
various racial groups are necessary. Such studies would add
significantly to the understanding of the American family
and the prospects for change in the future (Landale and
Tolnay 1991; Lichter 1992; Herring, Henderson, and Horton,
2014).
3. The Population and Structural Change Thesis
The population and structural change thesis maintains that
changes in the relative size of minority populations interact
with changes in the social structure to exacerbate
racial/ethnic inequality. This perspective acknowledges
structural arrangements that have relegated larger segments
of the black and Latino communities to joblessness.
However, it also argues that changes in the social and
demographic characteristics of the population interact with
changes in the social structure.
For example, in the past five decades, African Americans
and other racial and ethnic minorities have steadily increased
their levels of educational attainment. The educational
attainment gap between whites and blacks dwindled to less
than a year by 1990. In addition, there has been some
movement of racial minorities into nontraditional jobs. But
these changes have occurred in the context of a deteriorating
76 Cedric Herring: Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline
of Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000
labor market. Simply put, as the overall opportunity structure
declines, dominant groups attempt to maintain their
relatively privileged positions in society by eliminating
subordinate groups from competition (Blumer 1958;
Bonacich 1972; Smith 1981; Herring, and Henderson, 2012).
Moreover, the competitive threat to dominant groups is not
simply a function of a change in the size of the subordinate
population. Conflict occurs when that segment of the
subordinate population increases which is most likely to
compete with the dominant population (Bonacich 1976;
Lieberson 1980).
In the United States, dominant and subordinate group
relations have historically taken the form of racial and ethnic
conflict (van den Berghe 1967; Wilson 1973; Herring, 2006).
In the case of black-white relations, changes in the social
structure, in conjunction with changes in the population of
labor force participants, led to the wholesale
disenfranchisement of blacks from the post-Reconstruction
Era to the mid-1960s (Lieberson 1980; Franklin and Moss
1988).
Certainly, changes in population size have been linked to
inequality, labor force participation and intergroup conflict
in past studies (Blumer 1958; Blau 1977; Olzak 1996;
Tomaskovic-Devey and Roscigno, 1996). Moreover, the
association between social dislocation, black male
marriageability and female-headed households has been
documented (Wilson 1987). However, none of these studies
has focused upon how change in demographic and structural
factors interact to produce differences in black-white male
marriageability.
3.1. Race and Population Change in the United States
The story of population change in the United States over
the last two decades has been the phenomenal increase in the
various racial and ethnic minority populations (U.S. Bureau
of the Census 1993). The most dramatic increases have
occurred in the Asian American and Hispanic populations
(O'Hare 1992). Over the 1980-1992 period, the former has
increased by 123.5% and the latter by 65.3%. In both
instances, the increases were primarily due to relatively high
rates of immigration (O'Hare 1992). These subpopulations
are doing more than contributing to the increase or changing
racial and ethnic composition in the United States. They are
also bringing into question the social definition of race in this
society (Massey 1994; Waters 1994; Horton, Allen, Herring,
and Thomas, 2000; Herring, 2005).
The black population has also contributed to this increase
in the size and diversity of the overall minority population
(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993). Having a growth rate of
16.4%, their increase has been three times that of whites
between 1980-1992 (Butler and Herring, 1991; O'Hare 1992).
However, the history and sociology of the black experience
adds a different dimension to the overall issue of race and
population change. Despite gains since the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1960s, there is still a disproportionate
number of blacks who are disadvantaged (Wilson 1987;
Herring, House, and Mero, 1991). Moreover, blacks still
experience levels of discrimination that exceed those of other
groups— irrespective of class (Lieberson 1980; Feagin 1991;
Massey and Denton 1993; Herring, 2009). Hence, an overall
increase in the minority population is likely to have a
disproportionately negative effect on the black population as
various groups compete for existing opportunities.
3.2. Race and Structural Change
Equally as important as the increase in racial and ethnic
diversity in the United States is the structural context within
which diverse groups compete (Olzak 1992). The
transformation of the American industrial economy has
resulted in the displacement of many American workers. Hit
hardest have been those labor-intensive, manufacturing
industries and the blue collar workers that they employed
(Bluestone and Harrison 1982; Herring and Johnson, 1990;
Horton, Thomas, and Herring, 1995; Semyonov and Herring,
2007). Placed in the context of increasing levels of education
and job readiness among racial minorities, racial and ethnic
conflict is likely to be exacerbated. As jobs become
increasingly more difficult to obtain, irrespective of race and
education, gains experienced by blacks and other racial
minorities are perceived as coming at the expense of white
workers (Gans 1988; Bobo and Kluegal 1993). Wilson (1987)
focuses upon the effects of the restructuring of the American
industrial economy on blue-collar African American
workers. But the population and structural change thesis
suggests the likelihood that increased labor force
discrimination will also be experienced by middle-class
blacks and other middle class people of color. There are
several considerations that lend support to this hypothesis.
First, the increase in the black middle class population means
that for the first time in the history of the United States, white
middle class workers will have to compete with blacks for
professional job opportunities. Second, the restructuring of
the American economy is also impacting upon white-collar
workers, as companies downsize to meet the new economic
realities. In short, the black middle-class is growing at the
time when the opportunity structure for middle class people
is in a state of decline.
The population and structural change thesis also provides
a cogent explanation of differential marriageability for
different racial and ethnic groups: Labor market dynamics
are not guided by pure rationality and perfect competition;
rather, a number of concrete processes operate
systematically to generate dissimilar employment for whites,
blacks, Latinos and others. For example, segmented labor
markets offer qualitatively different jobs (Cain, 1976; Beck
et al., 1978; Dickens, and Lang, 1988; and Lichter, 1988).
Positions in the primary labor market offer relatively low
unemployment rates, high pay, good benefits, job security,
and the possibility for on-the-job advancement; jobs in the
secondary labor market offer relatively high unemployment
rates, low pay, poor benefits, seasonal or contingent
employment, and little upward mobility on the job. Blacks,
American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90 77
Latinos, and other racial and ethnic minority groups are
under-represented in the primary labor market and
over-represented in the secondary labor market. In addition,
normative beliefs about ―minority jobs‖ and ―white jobs‖
(Neckerman and Kirschenman, 1991), employer reliance on
―soft skills‖ rather than tangible ones (Kirschenman, 1992),
informal recruitment networks (Braddock and McPartland,
1987), employers' ―tastes for discrimination,‖ (Portes and
Sassen-Koob, 1987; and Neckerman and Kirschenman, 1991)
and exclusionary practices by labor unions and professional
associations (Johnson and Oliver, 1992) all act to steer racial
minorities into less stable, racially typed jobs in the
secondary labor market.
But as racial minorities have acquired credentials that
make them more competitive with white males for positions
in the primary labor market, the competition for more
desirable jobs in a declining labor market has become stiffer.
All of these factors contribute to lower overall levels of
marriageability for men. Nevertheless, there is a tendency for
the same credentials for minorities to result in less access to
professional jobs than for whites (Shelton, 1985; and Landry,
1987). Thus, smaller proportions of college-educated
minorities occupy positions of authority. So, fewer
minorities are able to influence decisions concerning hiring,
retention, and promotion of subordinates. Consequently,
minorities at different career stages lack the objective
sponsorship of their white counterparts. In addition, racial
minorities are more likely to be dismissed from their jobs,
especially early in their careers (Johnson and Herring, 1989).
These structural barriers lead to even lower levels of
marriageability for men of color.
3.3. Theoretical Implications for Male Marriage Patterns
Population and structural change provides the context
within which to assess differences in marriage patterns
among various racial groups over time. These differences are
expected to be manifested over various social and
demographic categories: age, region, urbanicity, education,
and occupation.
Age is expected to be a major determinant of marital status.
However, the pattern here is expected to be differentiated by
race. Contrary to arguments that suggest that discrimination
is primarily a historical legacy (Wilson 1980), the population
and structural change thesis argues that younger minority
males will have lower levels of marriageability relative to
comparable whites. This relationship is not expected to vary
significantly over time, and if anything, will be more
pronounced in 1990 than in 1980.
Regional variations in male marriageability by race are
expected because of racial and ethnic differences in
population distributions (O'Hare 1992) and employment
opportunities (Lichter 1989). Previous studies have
documented more directly the relationship between race,
male marriageability, and region (Wilson 1987; Horton and
Burgess 1992). In the current study, change in the gap
between blacks and whites in marriageability is expected to
be greater in the northeast and midwest because these two
regions have experienced the brunt of the economic
restructuring during the last decades. (Herring and Fasenfest,
1996).
The disproportionate percentage of racial minorities found
in the central cities makes urbanicity a key variable in this
analysis. Past studies have documented the effects of the
outmigration of middle class Blacks from the inner city areas
(Wilson 1987; Jaynes and Williams 1989). Thus, it would
follow that Black male marriageability would be lower in the
central city areas than outside them. Moreover, it would be
expected that Blacks outside of the central cities would have
levels of marriageability that would be more comparable to
white males. Yet, the population and structural change thesis
leads one to hypothesize a different relationship between
race, urban residence and male marriageability: It is
precisely outside of the central cities where blacks are most
likely to be in competition with whites for existing
employment opportunities. Thus, the differential in
marriageability between the two groups is argued to be
greater outside of the inner city.
Education could be expected to be the most important
variable relative to racial differentials in marriageability. A
male is more likely to be marriageable (i.e., employable) if
he is better educated. To the degree that race, per se, has
become less important in determining employment prospects
minority males with higher educational attainment would be
expected to have levels of marriageability that are equal to
comparably educated whites (Wilson 1980). On the other
hand, the population and structural change thesis would
predict a different result. It predicts that the racial
differentials in male marriageability will be greater among
those with higher educational attainment than among
minorities and whites with similarly low levels of
educational attainment. To reiterate, it is in the more highly
educated and skilled minority males who are most likely to
be competing with whites for the most prized jobs in the
labor force. In the midst of economic restructuring, it is in
this highest educational category where blacks and other
racial minorities are expected to have lost the most ground
relative to whites in marriageability.
Similar findings are expected when examining the racial
differentials in marriageability by occupation. Minorities in
the higher occupational categories are expected to have
lower levels of marriageability than their white counterparts.
In addition, these categories are expected to have
experienced greater increases in the marriageability
differential over time.
3.4. Statement of Hypotheses
H1. Blacks and Latinos are significantly less likely than
whites to be married and more likely to be unmarriageable,
net the effects of demographic and social variables.
H2. (a) The proportion of married men decreased over the
78 Cedric Herring: Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline
of Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000
1980-1990 period. (b) Among racial minorities, these
declines in marriage were more likely than those of whites to
be due to increases in the number of unmarriageable
bachelors. (c) Among whites, declines in marriage were
more likely than those of minorities to be due to increasing
preferences for bachelorhood.
H3. Blacks and Latinos have higher levels of
unmarriageability than whites in every region of the country.
H4. Black and Latino marriageability will be less than that
for whites within every age category.
H5. Blacks and Latinos do not have parity with whites in
marriageability within categories of education.
H6. College-educated black and Latino males are
relatively more likely to unwilling bachelors than are their
college-educated white counterparts.
4. Data and Methods
The data for this study come from the 1980 and 1990
Current Population Surveys. The study includes only male
respondents between the ages of 18 and 54. The sample size
is 64,169. The dependent variable, marital situation, is
operationalized as a trichotomy: husband, marriageable (i.e.,
marriageable but ―unwilling to marry‖) bachelor, and
unmarriageable (i.e., ―unable to marry‖) bachelor. Currently
married men were dummy coded to indicate that they were
husbands. Men who were not currently married but who
were employed with income above the poverty level for the
given year were dummy coded as marriageable bachelors.
All others (unmarried and unemployed or with incomes
below the poverty level) were dummy coded as
unmarriageable bachelors.
It is useful to introduce at this point language that will
facilitate a clear understanding of the analysis of the
dependent variable, marital situation. From this point on,
marriageable bachelors will be referred to as ―the unwilling‖
and unmarriageable bachelors will be referred to as the
―unable.‖ The third category, ―husband‖ will remain as is. It
will function as the reference category of the dependent
variable.
The independent variables of the study are as follows: (a)
Race was dummy variable coded as white, black, Latino, and
others. (b) Age was coded in years, but was collapsed into
categories of 18-24, 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 for tabular
presentations. (c) Region was dummy variable coded into
four categories: Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. (d)
Urbanicity of residence was dichotomized into central (inner)
city and non-central city. (e) Education coded as years of
attainment (or its equivalent), but was collapsed into a
trichotomy (of ―less than high school,‖ ―high school only,‖
and ―at least some college‖) for tabular presentation. (f)
Occupation was dummy variable coded into professional,
technical and managerial; administrative support and sales;
craftspersons; service workers; operators, fabricators and
laborers; and others. (g) Decade was dummy coded to
indicate whether the respondent was interviewed in 1980 or
1990. (h) Percentage Black in a community was coded to
reflect the proportion of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) that was African American, non-Hispanic. (i)
Percentage Hispanic in a community was coded to reflect the
proportion of an SMSA that was Hispanic, non-Black and
non-white. (j) Ratio of marriageable Black bachelors to
single Black females in a community was coded to reflect the
number of unmarried Black men (between the ages of 18 and
54) with jobs paying wages over the poverty threshold
divided by the number of unmarried Black women (between
the ages 18 and 54). (k) Ratio of marriageable Hispanic
bachelors to single Hispanic females in a community was
coded to reflect the number of unmarried Hispanic men
(between the ages of 18 and 54) with jobs paying wages over
the poverty threshold divided by the number of unmarried
Hispanic women (between the ages 18 and 54).
5. Results
Are blacks and Latinos less likely than whites to be
married and more likely to be unmarriageable bachelors?
Did the proportion of married men decrease between the
1980s and the 1990s? Are college-educated blacks and
Latinos more likely than their white counterparts to be
unwilling bachelors? Below we provide some preliminary
answers to these questions.
Figure 1 presents the distribution of male marriageability
by race and ethnicity for 1980 and 1990. It shows that for
1980 and 1990 combined, 18% of white men were unwilling
(i.e., marriageable) bachelors. This compares with 17% of
black males, 14% of Latino males, and 16% of other males.
This figure also shows that 21% of white males were unable
(i.e., unmarriageable) bachelors, compared with 38% of
black males, 29% of Latino males, and 28% of other males.
We also see that 61% of white males were husbands,
compared with 45% of black males, 57% of Latino males,
and 56% of other males. These differences provide a chi
square statistic of 1094.5 with six degrees of freedom, and
they are statistically significant at p<.01. Figure 1 also shows
that the proportion of husbands decreased for all racial and
ethnic groups between 1980 and 1990. Among whites, the
decline was from 62% to 60%. For Blacks, the decrease was
from 48% to 43%. For Latinos, the decline was from 60% to
54%. And for others, the drop was from 56.1% to 55.7%.
Among whites, the decrease in the proportion of males who
were husbands can be accounted for completely by a
corresponding increase in the proportion of the unwilling
bachelors. Among blacks, Latinos, and others, however, the
decline in the proportion of men who were husbands is
attributable, at least in part, to increases in the proportion of
unable bachelors.
American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90 79
Figure 1
Table 1 presents the relationships among marriageability
and race and ethnicity by various sociodemographic
variables and decade. These results show that racial and
ethnic patterns in marriageability vary by sociodemographic
subgroups. This table shows some general patterns: with
increasing age, the proportion of husbands increases for each
racial and ethnic group, and there were general increases in
the proportion of unable bachelors between 1980 and 1990.
For example, among those younger than age 25, racial and
ethnic differences in marriageability became smaller
between 1980 and 1990--not because of a decrease in the
proportion of unable bachelors for those groups with the
highest proportions of unmarriageable males. Rather, the
proportions of unable bachelors grew more rapidly among
those ethnic groups with the lowest percentages of them in
1980. In 1980, 59% of young whites, 78% of young Blacks,
61% of young Latinos, and 72% of young others were unable
bachelors. By 1990, these percentages had climbed to 68%,
83%, 73%, and 80% respectively.
Table 1 also shows that among men between the ages of
25 and 35, the proportion of husbands decreased for every
racial and ethnic group between 1980 and 1990. This decline
in husbands showed up as increases in the proportion of
unable bachelors. While the same basic patterns held true for
men between the ages of 35 and 44, the gap between black
men who were husbands and all other racial and ethnic
groups became greater between 1980 and 1990. During the
1980s, the proportion of men between the ages of 45 and 55
who were unable bachelors grew for whites, blacks, and
others. For blacks between ages 45 and 55, however, the
increase in the percentage of unable bachelors was greater
than for all other racial and ethnic groups. Consistent with
the predictions of the population and structural change thesis,
blacks and Latinos at every age category were more likely
than similar whites to be unable bachelors.
This table also shows that there was a general pattern of
decreases in the proportion of married men of all races in
three of the four regions. For whites, these declines in
marriage were accompanied by parallel increases in the
percentage of marriageable bachelors. For blacks, this
pattern held true only in the northeast. In the midwest and the
south, declines in marriage among black males were mostly
attributable to increases in the percentage of unable
bachelors. Among Latinos, declines in marriage were mostly
due to increases in the proportion of unablebachelors in each
of the regions. Again, these patterns are in keeping with the
expectations of the population and structural change thesis.
The table indicates that the percentage of married men in
urban settings increased between 1980 and 1990. Meanwhile,
there was little change in the proportion of urban men who
were unable bachelors, but there was an increase in the rate
of unwilling bachelors in urban settings. In contrast, there
was a decrease in the percentage of married men outside of
urban settings and a corresponding increase in the proportion
of men who were unable. While these patterns cut across
racial lines, they were consistent with the population and
structural change idea that black-white differences would be
greater outside of inner city areas. This held true in both 1980
80 Cedric Herring: Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline
of Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000
and 1990.
In 1980, 31% of those without at least a high school degree
were unable bachelors. By 1990, this had increased to over
45% of those without high school diplomas. While there
were racial differences in the proportion of those without
diplomas who were unable, the magnitude of increase among
them was similar for all racial groups. Among those with
high school diplomas, however, there were racial differences
in the patterns. In particular, there was a small decrease in the
percentage of high school-educated whites who were unable
bachelors, but there was an increase in the unable among
those from other racial groups with comparable levels of
education. Among those with at least some college education,
the changes in marriageability were similar for the various
racial groups, as there were small declines in the percentage
of the unable for all racial groups and slight increases in the
percentage of unwilling for whites, blacks, and Latinos.
While the racial difference in the percentage of unwilling
bachelors did not increase with level of education, the gap
between the percentage of blacks and whites who were
unable bachelors did increase with levels of education. Once
more, this corresponds to what the population and structural
change thesis argues about the racially differentiated effects
of education on access to adequate employment and
subsequent marital situation.
The results presented in Table 1 do not take into account
how these factors and others simultaneously affect the
relationship between male marriageability and race. Tables
2-4 present more rigorous evidence from multinomial logit
analysis that examines this relationship net of other variables
such as age, region, urbanicity, education, occupational type,
the percentage of the population that is black and Latino, and
the ratio of black men to women and the ratio of Latino men
to women.
The logit (logistic probability unit) model--a special case
of the general log-linear model--is appropriate when the
dependent variable can take on only limited values, and thus,
violates the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model
assumptions that the variables will be continuous and
measured on an interval scale. It assumes that the underlying
probabilities are logistic, i.e., in the form:
F(p) = 1/(1 + e-P) = ln(P/1 -P)
where p is the probability of the occurrence of an event
and e, an irrational number, is the base of natural logarithms
such that ln(ex) = X and the antilog of X is ex .
The logit is the logarithm of the odds of success; i.e., the
ratio of the probability of the occurrence of an event to the
probability of nonoccurrence of that event. The function
confines the value of (p) between 0 and 1. When the odds of
success are even (.5) the logit (coefficient) is zero; when they
are greater than even, the logit has a positive value; and when
they are less than even, its value is negative.
Column one of each table presents the log odds of being a
marriageable (unwilling) bachelor versus being a husband.
Column two of each table presents the log odds of being an
unmarriageable (unable) bachelor versus being a husband.
Unfortunately, the signs of logit coefficients are not
sufficient for determining the direction and magnitude of
change of corresponding probabilities in polytomous logit
models. For this reason, column three of Tables 2-4 presents
the odds ratios of being unable versus unwilling. These odds
ratios are calculated as follows:
antilog(2*CoefficientUnmarriageable Bachelor)
Odds Ratio = _____________________________________________
antilog(2*CoefficientMarriageable Bachelor)
Ratios of 1.0 indicate that being unwilling (i.e., a
marriageable bachelor) and unable (i.e., an unmarriageable
bachelor) are equally probable; ratios greater than 1.0 mean
that being unable is more likely; and ratios less than 1.0
suggest that the odds of being unwilling are greater. While
both the probabilities of being unwilling (Column 1) and an
unable (Column 2) may increase (or decrease) in comparison
to being a husband, it is their relative odds (Column 3) that is
the focus of much of this analysis. Therefore, when both
coefficients are in the same direction, comparisons will be
made between being unwilling and being unable.
Table 2 shows that, net of the correlates of marital status,
there were still significant differences in marriageability.
Column 1 shows that, net of other factors, blacks were more
likely than whites to be unwilling bachelors than husbands,
(p < .01), but Column 2 indicates that they were also more
likely than whites to be unable bachelors than husbands (p
< .01). Column 3 discloses that, net of all other variables,
black men were substantially more likely than whites to be
unable rather than unwilling bachelors.
Net of other factors, Latinos were less likely than were
whites to be bachelors than to be married. They were less
likely than comparable whites to be unable bachelors and
unwilling ones. But they were slightly more likely to be
unwilling than unable, net of the other factors.
Members of the other racial groups were more likely than
whites to be unable bachelors than husbands. Members of the
other racial groups were also more likely than were whites to
be unable bachelors rather than unwilling ones. The race by
decade interaction terms indicate that a higher proportion of
blacks than whites became unable bachelors (rather than
husbands) during the decade. The interactions also indicate
that a lower proportion of Latinos than whites became
unwilling bachelors (rather than husbands) during the
decade.
Other results of note include the finding that unwilling
bachelors became more common in the 1990s (versus the
1980s). In addition, during the 1990s, college graduates
became less likely to be unwilling bachelors, but more likely
to be unable bachelors. During the decade, higher
proportions of men with professional positions became
unwilling bachelors and fewer of them became unable ones;
lower proportions of those with administrative positions,
however, became unwilling bachelors, and more of them
became unable bachelors.
American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90 81
Table 1. Changes in the Distribution of Male Marital Situations by Race and Various Sociodemographic Variables, 1980, 1990, and 2000
82 Cedric Herring: Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline
of Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000
Table 2. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Net of Race/Ethnicity and Other Attributesa
Net of these structural and compositional changes, there
were other factors associated with marital condition. As
expected, the tendency to be a husband increased with age,
and the tendency to be an unwilling bachelor rather than an
unable one also increased with age. Those living in the
Northeast, the Midwest, and the South were less likely than
those living in the West to be unwilling bachelors, and higher
proportions of them were unable rather than unwilling
bachelors. Men living in urban settings were more likely to
be bachelors than to be husbands. With higher levels of
education, men were more likely to be unwilling bachelors
than husbands, less likely to be unable bachelors than
husbands, and more likely to be unwilling than unable
bachelors. Men with professional and administrative
positions, craft employment, and those who were employed
as laborers were less likely than others to be unable bachelors
than husbands. Men who lived in communities with higher
concentrations of black and Latino residents were more
American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90 83
likely to be bachelors. And finally, men who lived in areas
that had higher ratios of marriageable Latino bachelors to
Latino females were less likely to be unwilling bachelors
than husbands.
Generally, these results support the claim of the
population and structural change thesis that declines in
marriage reflect declining preferences for marriage among
the unwilling as well as decreases in the proportion thereof
because of a deteriorating labor market. There are changes in
marital patterns among men that are associated with changes
in education, occupational distribution, racial composition,
and sex ratios. These results are not inconsistent with the
idea that declines in marriage are in part due to the increasing
preference for bachelorhood among men of all racial and
ethnic groups who are marriageable bachelors.
Table 3 presents similar results for African Americans,
and Table 4 presents results for Latinos. As was the case in
the overall analysis, bachelorhood became more common
among black men in the 1990s. Generally, higher
proportions of black males became unwilling bachelors
rather than unable ones. During the 1990s, Black men with
professional or administrative positions, while already more
likely than others to be unwilling bachelors and less likely to
be husbands, became even more likely to be unwilling
bachelors during the decade. The results also show that
African Americans who lived in communities with higher
concentrations of black residents were more likely to be
bachelors. Similarly, those who lived in areas where the ratio
of the black unwilling bachelors to black females was high
were still more likely to be unwilling bachelors. These
findings underscore the tendency for some men, especially
those with options, to choose to remain unmarried.
Table 3. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Among African Americans, Net of Other Attributesa
84 Cedric Herring: Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline
of Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000
Other factors associated with the marital conditions of
African American men include age, region, urbanicity,
education, occupation, racial composition of one's
neighborhood, and the black marriageable male to female
sex ratio. Again, these patterns as a rule correspond to those
for the general population, and they support the central
predictions of the population and structural change thesis.
Table 4 presents results for Latino men. For this group,
being an unwilling bachelor became more common during
the decade. Most other patterns for Latino males also
corresponded to those of the general male population. Latino
college graduates became less likely to be unable during the
1990s. Latino men with professional and administrative
positions were more likely than others to be unwilling
bachelors than husbands. Those with administrative
positions became more likely to be unable bachelors during
the decade. Latinos who lived in areas where the ratio of
Latino unwilling to females was high were more likely to be
unwilling bachelors. At the same time, the likelihood of
being an unwilling bachelor was more than that of being a
husband.
Other factors associated with the marital conditions of
Latino men include age, region, education, and occupation.
These results generally conform to the patterns discussed
above, and they also support the central predictions of the
population and structural change thesis.
Table 4. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Among Latinos, Net of Other Attributesa
American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90 85
Tables 5 presents results for men of other racial categories.
This table 5 shows that there were few systematic patterns
among men of other racial and ethnic categories in terms of
changes between 1980 and 1990. The one exception
occurred among men with professional positions. A higher
proportion of these men became unable bachelors during the
decade. Other patterns among this group generally parallel
those of the general population. Other factors such as age,
region, occupation, and racial composition do, however,
affect marital patterns among these men.
Table 6 presents the results for white men. This table
shows that between 1980 and 1990, a greater proportion of
white men became unwilling bachelors. At the same time,
however, a higher proportion of white men with college
educations and professional or administrative positions
became unable bachelors. There were marital patterns
among white men that were associated with age, region,
urbanicity, education, occupational distribution, racial
composition, and sex ratios. Again, these results are not
inconsistent with the idea that declines in marriage are in part
due to the increasing preference for bachelorhood among
these men.
Table 5. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Among Others, Net of Other Attributesa
86 Cedric Herring: Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline
of Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000
Table 6. Multinomial Logit Model Predicting the Tendency to be a Marriageable Bachelor or Unmarriageable Bachelor Versus a Husband, Among Whites, Net of Other Attributesa
6. Conclusions
The purposes of this paper were twofold. First, an
assessment was made of the relative impact of social and
demographic variables on racial differences in
marriageability. Second, the extent to which demographic
and social variables interact with race to impact upon
marriageability was measured.
The results revealed that the race effect did change over
the 1980-1990 period. For blacks, there was a substantial
reversal in the likelihood of marriageability. In 1980, the
chances of a black male being marriageable were slightly
better than even. By 1990, the odds for Black males were
markedly lower. While there was a similar decline in
marriageability rates for comparable white males, only in
1990 were whites less likely than not to be marriageable.
Blacks still trailed whites in marriageability in 1990.
Moreover, racial differences persisted across regional, age,
and educational categories. In no category for any variable
did Blacks equal whites in marriageability. Perhaps the most
important finding was for those Black males that are
presumed to be the most advantaged--the college educated.
Not only were Blacks in this category more likely than not to
be unmarriageable, but their level of marriageability was
comparable to that for Blacks who had not completed high
school. Ironically, Blacks with high school education were
the most marriageable and the only group with a better than
even chance of being so. Once again, this finding
underscores the importance of the interaction between race
and class.
American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90 87
In addition, these findings are consistent with the
dynamics of the marriage market within the context of
structural change. In other words, it is important to reiterate
how the concept "marriageable male" is operationalized. A
marriageable male is one who is: a) unmarried, b) employed
full time, and c) has an income above the poverty level. One
consequence of population and structural change relative to
racial inequality would be to decrease the number of black
males in the latter two categories, which in turn increases the
number in the former. Lieberson (1980) noted that when
employment opportunities decline racial discrimination
intensifies because whites perceive Blacks as competitors in
the labor force. This decline in marriageability for
college-educated Blacks is consistent with the reality of
fewer opportunities for college-educated persons in general,
and with the "cost" of being black in a competitive market.
Finally, these trends in black male marriageability have
serious implications for the future of the black family.
Should these trends continue, then further increases in the
proportion of female-headed households is expected.
Moreover, the gap in social and economic standing between
blacks and whites is likely to be exacerbated as employment
opportunities, even for the college educated, dwindle in the
face of population and structural change
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the
American Sociological Association annual meeting and the
annual conference of the Association of Black Sociologists.
REFERENCES
[1] Bennett, Neil, David E. Bloom and Patricia H. Craig. 1989. "The Divergence of Black and White Marriage Patterns." American Journal of Sociology 95:692-712.
[2] Bianchi, Suzanne and Reynolds Farley. 1979. "Racial Differences in Family Living Arrangements and Economic Well-being: An Analysis of Recent Trends." Journal of Marriage and the Family 41:537-551.
[3] Bianchi, Suzanne. 1981. Household Composition and Racial Inequality. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
[4] Bianchi, Suzanne. 1986. American Women in Transition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[5] Blau, Peter M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: The Free Press.
[6] Blau, Peter M. and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley.
[7] Bluestone, Barry and Bennett Harrison. 1982. The Deindustrialization of America. New York: Basic Books.
[8] Blumer, Herbert. 1958. "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position." Pacific Sociological Review 1:3-7.
[9] Bobo, Lawrence and James R. Kluegel. 1993. "Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest, Stratification Ideology, or Racial Attitudes?" American Sociological Review 58:443-464.
[10] Bonacich, Edna. 1972. "A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market." American Sociological Review 37:547-559.
[11] Bonacich, Edna. 1976. "Advanced Capitalism and Black/White Race Relations." American Sociological Review 41:34-51.
[12] Bumpass, Larry L. 1990. "What's Happening to the Family? Interactions between Demographic and Institutional Change." Demography 27:483-98.
[13] Butler, John Sibley and Cedric Herring. 1991. ―Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship in America: Toward an Explanation of Racial and Ethnic Group Variations in Self-Employment.‖ Sociological Perspectives 34:79-94.
[14] Cherlin, Andrew J. 1990. "Recent Changes in American Fertility, Marriage and Divorce. The Annals of the American Academy of Social Science 510:145-154.
[15] Cherlin, Andrew J. 1992. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[16] Durkheim, Emile. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
[17] Ellwood, David T. and Jonathan Crane. 1990. "Family Change Among Black Americans: What Do We Know?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 4:65-84.
[18] England, Paula and George Farkas. 1986. Households, Employment, and Gender: A Social, Economic, and Demographic View. New York: Aldine.
[19] Farley, Reynolds and Walter R. Allen. 1987. The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[20] Farley, Reynolds. 1988. "After the Starting Line: Blacks and Women in an Uphill Race." Demography 25:477-95.
[21] Feagin, Joe R. 1991. "The Continuing Significance of Race." American Sociological Review 56:106-116.
[22] Fossett, Mark A. and K. Jill Kiecolt. 1990. "Mate Selection Availability, Family Formation and Family Structure Among Black Americans in Nonmetropolitan Louisiana 1970-1980." Rural Sociology 55:305-327.
[23] Fossett, Mark A., Omar R. Galle, Jeffrey A. Barr. 1989. "Racial Occupational Inequality, 1940-1980: A Research Note on the Impact of the Changing Regional Distribution of the Black Population." Social Forces 68:415-427.
[24] Franklin, John Hope and Alfred A. Moss, Jr. 1988. From Slavery to Freedom. 6th edition, New York: Knopf.
[25] Gans, Herbert. 1988. Middle American Individualism. New York: The Free Press.
[26] Glick, Paul. 1988. "Demographic Pictures of Black Families." Pp. 111-132 in Harriette Pipes McAdoo (ed.) Black Families. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage Publications.
[27] Goldman, Noreen, Charles F. Westoff, and Charles Hammerslough. 1984. "Demography of the Marriage Market
88 Cedric Herring: Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline
of Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000
in the United States." Population Index. 50:: 5-25.
[28] Goldscheider, Frances Kobrin and Linda J. Waite. 1986. "Sex Differences in the Entry into Marriage." American Journal of Sociology. 92:91-109.
[29] Guttentag, Marcia and Paul F. Secord. 1983. Too Many Women? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
[30] Henderson, Loren and Cedric Herring. 2013. ―Does Critical Diversity Pay in Higher Education? Race, Gender, and Departmental Rankings in Research Universities.‖ Politics, Groups, and Identities: Journal of the Western Political Science Association 1 (3): 299-310.
[31] Henderson, Loren, Cedric Herring, Hayward Derrick Horton, and Melvin Thomas. 2015. ―Credit Where Credit is Due? Race, Gender, and Discrimination in the Credit Scores of Business Startups.‖ The Review of Black Political Economy 42: 459-479.
[32] Henderson, Loren. 2009. ―Between the Two: Determinants of Bisexual Identity among African Americans.‖ Journal of African American Studies 13:263-282.
[33] Henderson, Loren. 2013. ―From Political Novice to Veteran: Youth Participation in the Immigrant Mobilization.‖ Pp. 335-350 in Reinventing Race, Reinventing Racism. J. Betancur (ed.) Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publisher.
[34] Henderson, Loren. 2015a. ―Racial Isolation and Chlamydia Rates in U.S. Counties.‖ Race and Social Problems doi 10.10007/S12552-015-9143-8.
[35] Henderson, Loren. 2015b. ―Tying the Knot Across the Color Line: An Intersectional Analysis of Getting Married Interracially.‖ Issues in Race and Society: An Interdisciplinary Global Journal Vol 2 Issue 2:62-85.
[36] Herring, Cedric and Gloria Jones Johnson. 1990. ―Political Responses to Underemployment among African Americans.‖ National Political Science Review 2:92-109.
[37] Herring, Cedric and Karen Rose Wilson-Sadberry. 1993. ―Preference or Necessity?: Changing Work Roles of Black and White Women, 1973-1990.‖ Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:314-325.
[38] Herring, Cedric and Loren Henderson. 2012. ―From Affirmative Action to Diversity: Toward a Critical Diversity Perspective.‖ Critical Sociology 38:629-643.
[39] Herring, Cedric and Loren Henderson. 2015. Diversity in Organizations: A Critical Examination. New York: Routledge.
[40] Herring, Cedric and Loren Henderson. 2016. ―Wealth Inequality in Black and White: Cultural and Structural Sources of the Racial Wealth Gap.‖ Race and Social Problems 8:4–17.
[41] Herring, Cedric, Hayward Derrick Horton, and Melvin Thomas. 1993. ―Feminization of Poverty or Pauperization of Women? Clarifying the Sources of Change in the Impoverishment of Women and That of Their Families.‖ National Journal of Sociology 7:43-65.
[42] Herring, Cedric, Hayward Derrick Horton, and Melvin Thomas. 2015. ―Life at the Edge: Racialized Precarity and Economic Insecurity in the United States.‖ Research in Race
and Ethnic Relations 19:125-143.
[43] Herring, Cedric, James S. House, and Richard P. Mero. 1991. ―Racially Based Changes in Political Alienation in America.‖ Social Science Quarterly 72:123-134.
[44] Herring, Cedric, Loren Henderson, and Hayward Derrick Horton. 2014. ―Race, the Great Recession, and the Foreclosure Crisis: From American Dream to Nightmare.‖ Pp. 95-110 in Re-Positioning Race: Prophetic Research in a Post-Racial Obama Age. Sandra L. Barnes, Zandria Robinson and Earl Wright, II. (Eds.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
[45] Herring, Cedric. 2005. ―Open for Business in the Black Metropolis: Race, Disadvantage, and Entrepreneurial Activity in Chicago’s Inner City.‖ The Review of Black Political Economy 31:35-57.
[46] Herring, Cedric. 2006. ―Hurricane Katrina and the Racial Gulf: A Du Boisian Analysis of Victims’ Experiences.‖ Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 3:129-144.
[47] Herring, Cedric. 2009. ―Does Diversity Pay? Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity.‖ American Sociological Review 74: 208-224.
[48] Herring, Cedric. 2013. ―Critical Diversity and Departmental Rankings in Sociology.‖ American Sociologist 44:267–281.
[49] Herring, Cedric. 2014. ―Diversity and Departmental Rankings in Chemistry.‖ Pp. 225-236 in Careers, Entrepreneurship, and Diversity: Challenges and Opportunities in the Global Chemistry Enterprise. H. N. Cheng, Sadiq Shah, and Marinda Li Wu. (Eds.). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society Books.
[50] Horton, Hayward Derrick and Norma J. Burgess. 1992. "Where Are the Black Men? Regional Differences in the Pool of Marriageable Black Males in the United States." National Journal of Sociology 6:3-19. Jaynes, Gerald D. and Robin Williams. 1989. A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989.
[51] Horton, Hayward Derrick, Beverlyn Lundy Allen, Cedric Herring, and Melvin Thomas. 2000. ―Lost in the Storm: The Sociology of the Black Working Class, 1850-1990.‖ American Sociological Review 65:128-137.
[52] Horton, Hayward Derrick, Melvin Thomas, and Cedric Herring. 1995. ―Rural-Urban Differences in Black Family Structure: An Analysis of the 1990 Census.‖ Journal of Family Issues 16:298-314.
[53] Landale, Nancy S. and Stewart E. Tolnay. 1991. "Group Differences in Economic Opportunity and the Timing of Marriage: Blacks and Whites in the Rural South, 1910." American Sociological Review 56:33-45.
[54] Lichter, Daniel T. 1989. "Race, Employment Hardship, and Inequality in the American Nonmetropolitan South." American Sociological Review 54:436-46.
[55] Lichter, Daniel T. 1990. "Delayed Marriage, Marital Homogamy, and the Mate Selection Process among White Women." Social Science Quarterly 71:802-11.
[56] Lichter, Daniel T. 1988. "Racial Differences in Underemployment in American Cities." American Journal of Sociology 93:771-92.
[57] Lichter, Daniel T., Diane K. McLaughlin, George Kephart
American Journal of Sociological Research 2016, 6(3): 74-90 89
and David J. Landry. 1992. "Race and the Retreat from Marriage: A Shortage of Marriageable Men?" American Sociological Review 57:781-799.
[58] Lichter, Daniel T., Felicia B. LeClere, and Diane K. McLaughlin. 1991. "Local Marriage Markets and the Marital Behavior of Black and White Women." American Journal of Sociology 96:843-67.
[59] Lieberson, Stanley. 1980. A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[60] Malthus, Robert T. 1798. An Essay on the Principles of Population, as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society. London: J. Johnson.
[61] Mare, Robert D. 1991. "Five Decades of Educational Assortative Mating." American Sociological Review 56:15-32.
[62] Mare, Robert D. and Christopher Winship. 1991. "Socioeconomic Change and the Decline of Marriage for Blacks and Whites." Pp. 175-202 in The Urban Underclass, edited by Christopher Jencks and P.E. Peterson. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
[63] Massey Douglas S. 1994. "The New Immigration and the Meaning of Ethnicity in the United States." Paper presented at the 13th annual Albany Conference entitled, "American Diversity: A Demographic Challenge for the Twenty-First Century," April 15-1 6, 1994, at SUNY-Albany.
[64] Massey, Douglas and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
[65] Mastracci, Sharon and Cedric Herring. 2010. ―Nonprofit Management Practices and Work Processes to Promote Gender Diversity.‖ Nonprofit Management and Leadership 21:155-175.
[66] Melton, Willie and Darwin L. Thomas. 1976. "Instrumental and Expressive Values in Mate Selection of Black and White College Students." Journal of Marriage and the Family 38:509-17.
[67] Michael, Robert T. and Nancy Brandon Tuma. 1985. "Entry Into Marriage and Parenthood by Young Men and Women: The Influence of Family Background." Demography 22:515-44.
[68] Morgan, S. Phillip, Antonio McDaniel, Andrew T. Miller, and Samuel Preston. 1993. "Racial Differences in Household and Family Structure at the Turn of the Century." American Journal of Sociology 98:798-828.
[69] O'Hare, William P. 1992. "America's Minorities--The Demographics of Diversity." Population Bulletin 47:1-47.
[70] O'Hare, William P., Kevin M. Pollard, Jaynia L. Mann and Mary M. Kent. 1991. "African Americans in the 1990s." Population Bulletin 46:2-40.
[71] Olzak, Susan, Suzanne Shanahan and Elizabeth H. McEneaney. 1996. ―Poverty, Segregation and Race Riots: 1960 to 1993.‖ American Sociological Review 61:590-613.
[72] Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[73] Oppenheimer, Valerie Kincade. 1988. "A Theory of Marriage Timing." American Journal of Sociology 94:563-91.
[74] Oropesa, R.S., Daniel T. Lichter and Robert N. Anderson. 1994. ―Marriage Markets and the Paradox of Mexican American Nuptiality.‖ Journal of Marriage and the Family 56:889-907.
[75] Preston, Samuel H. and Alan Thomas Richards. 1975. "The Influence of Women's Work Opportunities on Marriage Rates." Demography 12:209-22.
[76] Qian, Zenchao and Samuel Preston. 1993. "Changes in American Marriage, 1972 to 1987: Availability and Forces of Attraction by Age and Education." American Sociological Review 58:482-495.
[77] Rockquemore, Kerry Ann and Loren Henderson. 2015. ―Inter-Racial Families in Post-Civil Rights America.‖ Pp. 99-112 in Families as They Really Are, Second Edition. B. Risman (ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
[78] Ruggles, Steven. 1994. "The Origins of African-American Family Structure." American Sociological Review 59:136-151.
[79] Schoen, Robert and James R. Kluegel. 1988. "The Widening Gap in Black and White Marriage Rates: The Impact of Population Composition and Differential Marriage Propensities." American Sociological Review 53:895-907.
[80] Semyonov, Moshe and Cedric Herring. 2007. ―Segregated Jobs or Ethnic Niches? The Impact of Racialized Employment on Earnings Inequality.‖ Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 25: 245-257.
[81] Smith, A. Wade. 1981. "Racial Tolerance as a Function of Group Position." American Sociological Review 46:558-573.
[82] South, Scott J. 1991. "Sociodemographic Differentials in Mate Selection Preferences." Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:920-40.
[83] South, Scott J. 1992. "For Love or Money? Sociodemographic Determinants of the Expected Benefits from Marriage." Pp. 171-94 in The Changing American Family: Sociological and Demographic Perspectives, edited by S.J. South and S.E. Tolnay. Boulder, CO: Westview.
[84] South, Scott J. and Kim M. Lloyd. 1992a. "Marriage Opportunities and Family Formation: Further Implications of Imbalanced Sex Ratios." Journal of Marriage and the Family 54:440-51.
[85] South, Scott J. and Kim M. Lloyd. 1992b. "Marriage Markets and Nonmarital Fertility in the U.S." Demography 29:247-64.
[86] Spanier, Graham B. and Paul C. Glick. 1980. "Mate Selection Differentials Between Whites and Blacks in the United States." Social Forces 58:707-25.
[87] Spanier, Graham B. and Paul C. Glick. 1996. ―Contextual Influences on Young Men’s Transition to First Marriage.‖ Social Forces 74:1097-1119.
[88] Teachman, Jay D., Karen A. Polonko, and Geoffrey K. Leigh. 1987. "Marital Timing: Race and Sex Comparisons." Social Forces 66:239-68.
[89] Thomas, Melvin, Cedric Herring, and Hayward Derrick
90 Cedric Herring: Scarce Jobs and Racial Differences in the Decline
of Marriage among Men in the United States, 1980-2000
Horton. 1994. ―Discrimination over the Life Course: A Synthetic Cohort Analysis of Earnings Differences Between Black and White Males, 1940-1990.‖ Social Problems 41:608-628.
[90] Tomascavik-Devey Donald and Vincent J. Roscigno. 1996. ―Racial Economic Subordination and White Gain in the U.S. South.‖ American Sociological Review 61:565-589.
[91] United States Bureau of the Census. 1993. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
[92] van den Berghe, Pierre L. 1967. Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[93] Waite, Linda J. and Glenna Spitze. 1981. "Young Women's Transition to Marriage." Demography 18:681-94.
[94] Waters, Mary C. 1994. "The Social Construction of Race and Ethnicity." Paper presented at the 13th annual Albany Conference entitled, "American Diversity: A Demographic Challenge for the Twenty-First Century," April 15-16, 1994, SUNY-Albany.
[95] Wilson, William Julius. 1973. Power, Racism and Privilege. New York: The Macmillan Company.
[96] Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The Declining Significance of Race. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[97] Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[98] Wilson, William Julius. 1991. "Public Policy Research and the Truly Disadvantaged." Pp. 460-481 in The Urban Underclass, edited by Christopher Jencks and Paul E. Peterson. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.