heather o’connell

Heather O’Connell

University of Wisconsin • Center for Demography and Ecology • Institute for Research on Poverty

Introduction. Researchers acknowledge the uniqueness of the South by including regional dummy variables in analyses. However such an approach does not help explain the processes behind this uniqueness. In addition, such studies have addressed overall poverty rates, but have not focused on racial inequality in poverty. The racial inequality nuance seems important given the historical significance of the South in shaping US race relations.

▪What is it that makes the South different from the rest of the US? ▫One possible answer is the legacy of slavery.

The Legacy of Slavery and Racial Inequality in Poverty in the US South

▪ How should it be operationalized?▫ The response in the poverty literature is the proportion black (Swanson et al, 1994). I suggest employing a historical measure and two separate operationalizations suggested by the racial state literature (James, 1988).

Measures.

1860 Slave Concentration in Southern Counties

2) The number of slaves relative to the total population reported in the 1860 Census.

Counties were clustered to match 1860 data to 2000 boundaries

0 225 450112.5Meters

4

Legend

Proportion Black

0.0002 - 0.0594

0.0594 - 0.1607

0.1608 - 0.3006

0.3007 - 0.4826

0.4827 - 0.8608

2000 Black Concentration in Southern Counties

Counties were clustered to match 1860 data to 2000 boundaries

0 225 450112.5Meters

4

1) The number of African Americans relative to the total population reported in the 2000 Census SF3.

Legend

Proportion of slaves0.0000 - 0.1002

0.1003 - 0.2310

0.2311 - 0.3916

0.3917 - 0.5706

0.5707 - 0.9085

Legend

% Total Land Operated by Blacks

Black Land Ownership in Southern Counties

3) The proportion of total farm acres for black operators relative to the proportion for white operators reported in the 2002 Agricultural Census.

Black Advantage in Voter Registration in 5 States

Counties were clustered to match 1860 data to 2000 boundaries

0 225 450112.5Meters

4

Counties were clustered to match 1860 data with 2000 boundaries

0 140 28070Meters

4

4) The proportion of the voting age black population registered to vote relative to the proportion of the white population registered to vote (The registration counts are taken from states’ websites for the time closest to 2000; only 5 states report them by race. This subsample is used to better understand how black land ownership, which is available for all states, is related to the racial state literature).

Results. A bivairiate correlation confirms the association suggested in maps 3 and 4: black land ownership is not highly related to voter registration (r = .23). However, regressions were conducted for the five state sample to compare patterns with those from the overall South. Results vary between the two samples, for both the main explanatory variables and control variables.

0.0000 - 0.0134

0.0134 - 0.0364

0.0364 - 0.0703

0.0703 - 0.1434

0.1435 - 0.2492

Five States OLS Models

Census South OLS Models

(AL, GA, LA, NC and SC)

Contact: hoconnel@ssc.wisc.edu

▪ The control variables found in the poverty literature are inconsistently related to racial inequality in poverty. ▪ Contemporary concentrations of blacks is only related to racial inequality in poverty when the whole South is considered. ▪ The historical concentration of slaves in a place explains the relationship of the contemporary concentration of blacks with inequality in poverty. ▪ Neither operationalization of the racial state is related to racial inequality in poverty, nor do they have the expected mediating relationship with slave concentration.

Conclusions. The legacy of slavery is not simply blacks’ disadvantage in accumulating wealth, as suggested by the contemporary concentration operationalization. I argue the legacy of slavery is the normative structure of a place that has continued to affect racialized outcomes, including poverty, to this day. However, my results suggest this legacy cannot be explained by a formalized contemporary racial state. Further investigation into the mechanisms behind the legacy are needed. In addition, the model fit suggests more work is needed to identify explanatory variables related to racial inequality in poverty rates, because the traditional covariates of poverty explain only a fraction of the variation.

Legend

% 18+ Black Population Registered to Vote

0.0950 - 0.53620.5363 - 0.8321

0.8322 - 0.94270.9428 - 1.04141.0423 - 1.2462

  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4  β SE β SE β SE β SE_const 5.44 3.16 5.47 3.15 7.32 3.25 7.95 3.33metropolitan status -0.10 0.20 -0.06 0.20 -0.11 0.20 -0.13 0.20high school only 3.65 2.18 3.42 2.18 1.77 2.30 1.56 2.31high school or more 4.74* 2.24 4.54* 2.24 3.94 2.24 3.91 2.25unemployment -7.52 6.19 -8.84 6.26 -10.64 6.26 -11.44 6.45agriculture industry -2.10 4.03 -2.12 4.02 -3.22 4.02 -4.43 4.24manufacturing -2.56 2.58 -2.38 2.58 -3.24 2.59 -3.93 2.72service industry -6.02 3.87 -4.86 3.97 -6.77 4.03 -7.44 4.17educ/health industry -2.43 3.12 -2.19 3.12 -3.53 3.16 -4.09 3.23fire industry 5.70 7.53 5.49 7.52 4.73 7.46 3.23 7.64single moms 8.57* 3.36 3.21 5.35 5.96 5.46 6.57 5.51families with kids -4.10* 2.02 -3.86 2.02 -4.77* 2.05 -4.97* 2.07middle class -8.01** 2.86 -7.92** 2.86 -7.46** 2.84 -7.77** 2.88proportion black     1.44 1.12 0.23 1.25 0.30 1.27proportion slave         1.21* 0.57 1.16* 0.57black land ownership             -1.94 2.17voter registration             0.29 0.56           

  R² 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.24

  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4  β SE β SE β SE β SE_constant 3.96 1.53 3.16 1.52 3.48 1.51 3.66 1.52metropolitan status -0.01 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.11high school only -2.61* 0.99 -2.03* 0.98 -2.07* 0.98 -2.17* 0.98high school or more 1.09 0.96 1.21 0.94 1.22 0.93 1.25 0.93unemployment -6.75* 3.10 -6.19* 3.05 -5.10 3.04 -4.96 3.04agriculture industry -1.28 1.98 -0.97 1.95 -1.44 1.94 -1.66 1.95manufacturing -2.66 1.37 -1.72 1.36 -1.89 1.35 -2.02 1.36service industry -4.80* 2.08 -2.09 2.13 -2.31 2.11 -2.39 2.11educ/health industry -3.46* 1.75 -2.51 1.74 -3.04 1.73 -3.20 1.74fire industry 6.10 4.24 6.60 4.18 6.91 4.14 6.34 4.17single moms 17.33* 1.75 5.95* 3.00 8.37** 3.05 8.17** 3.05families with kids -2.18* 1.10 -0.38 1.15 -1.21 1.17 -1.30 1.17middle class 1.67 1.45 0.10 1.47 -0.14 1.46 -0.15 1.46proportion black     2.28** 0.49 0.82 0.63 1.02 0.66proportion slave         1.15** 0.32 1.17** 0.32black land ownership             -1.48 1.38             R² 0.21 0.24 0.26 0.26  Moran I 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03