Lippard, C D (2006) Building inequality: A case study of white, black, and latino contractors in the Atlanta construction industry. PhD thesis, Georgia State University, USA.
Abstract
In this exploratory case study, I compare and contrast the self-employment experiences and hiring practices of Black, Latino, and White business owners in the Atlanta construction industry. While much of the ethnic entrepreneurship literature has explained the racialized differences between racial and ethnic groups concerning self-employment and their hiring practices, few studies have been able to provide a clear explanation of the mechanisms racial groups use to maintain an economic and social edge without being overtly racist. Furthermore, many scholars have not yet begun to compare the experiences of Whites, Blacks, and Latinos in the South and how their racial ideologies and competition spur on discrimination and racism in a supposedly "color-blind" environment. To address these gaps, I interviewed 42 White, Black, and Latino sub- and general contractors in the Atlanta metropolitan area. I also collected observational data by visiting the worksites of my respondents and attending organizational meetings. Results suggest that even though many of my respondents indicated that racial dissimilarities were due to individual effort and poor motivation, I find that these color-blind ideologies work well to solidify the racial hierarchy and privilege White contractors. I also find that these ideologies block Blacks and Latinos from obtaining better financing, building a good reputation, or having access to important social connections that introduced most contractors to more lucrative prospects. More importantly, the White "good ole' boy" networks worked as a mechanism to exclude Blacks and Latinos from more lucrative connections, and keep any interactions to a strictly employee-employer relationship. However, these business owners' hiring practices are the same: they want the cheapest and hardest-working employees they can get, who are usually Latino laborers. By moving beyond the black/white dichotomy, this study offers new explanations of race relations and racial inequality in a metropolitan area recently affected by immigration. Finally, I show that competition pushes these contractors to be more discriminatory, especially when Latino immigrants threaten their "hard-earned" social positions. My empirical and conceptual analyses provide a good start toward explaining how racism and discrimination is organized and continues to persist in a major U.S. industry.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Gallagher, C |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competition; discrimination; inequality; motivation; racism; employment; entrepreneurship; migration; employee; employer; owner; case study; interview |
| Index terms: | entrepreneurship, immigrant, inequality, privilege, construction industry, interaction, case study, migration, employment, owner, ethnic group, self-employment, competition, financing, discrimination, hiring practice, interview, racism, motivation, general contractor |
| Subjects: | behavioral psychology, industry analysis, professional ethics, sociology, market analysis, business economics, demography, management, economic analysis, psychology, practitioner, business, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Ethics, Legal Issues, Human Resources, Urban Studies, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here