"Do Prisons Make Us Safer? is an important volume. Steven Raphael and Michael A. Stoll have brought together some of the best researchers in the country to address a crucial question: Does the marginal crime reduction benefit of increased incarceration outweigh its social and economic costs to society? The compelling findings are extremely thought provoking and the policy implications are profound. I very strongly recommend this timely publication."
-William Julius Wilson, Lewis P. and Linda L. Geyser University Professor. Harvard University

"This ambitious book tackles one of the most far-reaching phenomena of the modern American era, the relentless growth of our nation's prison population. Each chapter is a gem, shedding new light on the complex interactions between our prisons and our society. In the future, no serious assessment of our incarceration policies will be complete without reference to this ground-breaking scholarship."
-Jeremy Travis, president, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York

The number of people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails more than quadrupled between 1975 and 2005, reaching the unprecedented level of over two million inmates today. Annual corrections spending now exceeds 64 billion dollars, and many of the social and economic burdens resulting from mass incarceration fall disproportionately on minority communities. Yet crime rates across the country have also dropped considerably during this time period. In Do Prisons Make Us Safer? leading experts systematically examine the complex repercussions of the massive surge in our nation’s prison system.

Do Prisons Make Us Safer? asks whether it makes sense to maintain such a large and costly prison system. The contributors expand the scope of previous analyses to include a number of underexplored dimensions, such as the fiscal impact on states, effects on children, and employment prospects for former inmates. Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll assess the reasons behind the explosion in incarceration rates and find that criminal behavior itself accounts for only a small fraction of the prison boom. Eighty-five percent of the trend can be attributed to “get tough on crime” policies that have increased both the likelihood of a prison sentence and the length of time served. Shawn Bushway shows that while prison time effectively deters and incapacitates criminals in the short term, long-term benefits such as overall crime reduction or individual rehabilitation are less clear cut. Amy Lerman conducts a novel investigation into the effects of imprisonment on criminal psychology and uncovers striking evidence that placement in a high security penitentiary leads to increased rates of violence and anger—particularly in the case of first time or minor offenders. Rucker Johnson documents the spill-over effects of parental incarceration—children who have had a parent serve prison time exhibit more behavioral problems than their peers. Policies to enhance the well-being of these children are essential to breaking a devastating cycle of poverty, unemployment, and crime. John Donohue’s economic calculations suggest that alternative social welfare policies such as education and employment programs for at-risk youth may lower crime just as effectively as prisons, but at a much lower human cost. The cost of hiring a new teacher is roughly equal to the cost of incarcerating an additional inmate.

The United States currently imprisons a greater proportion of its citizens than any other nation in the world. Until now, however, we’ve lacked systematic and comprehensive data on how this prison boom has affected families, communities, and our nation as a whole. Do Prisons Make Us Safer? provides a highly nuanced and deeply engaging account of one of the most dramatic policy developments in recent U.S. history.

STEVEN RAPHAEL is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

MICHAEL A. STOLL is professor and chair of public policy in the School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles.

CONTRIBUTORS: Shawn D. Bushway, John J. Donohue III, John W. Ellwood, Joshua Guetzkow, Harry J. Holzer, Rucker C. Johnson, Amy E. Lerman, Raymond Paternoster, Steven Raphael, Michael A. Stoll, David F. Weiman, and Christopher Weiss

"For twenty years, Lee Rainwater and Timothy Smeeding have developed and enhanced the Luxembourg Income Study to provide comparable data on living standards in industrialized economies. In Poor Kids in a Rich Country, they document that the relative rate of child poverty depends more on how a government regulates the labor market and provides social benefits to those who fare badly in the market than on that country's overall standard of living. They show, that even though average real income in the United States is well-above that of most countries, low-income American children have fewer material resources than their counterparts in ten of fourteen comparison countries. Poor Kids in a Rich Country is the best source for detailed information on variations in living standards across industrialized countries; it should be read by anyone interested in understanding how income poverty is measured and how differences can be interpreted."
-SHELDON DANZIGER, Henry J. Meyer Collegiate Professor of Public Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan

"Poor Kids in a Rich Country easily reaffirms Lee Rainwater's and Timothy Smeeding's reputation as the leading international poverty researchers. With unrelenting scientific rigor, they tackle a great paradox of our times, namely that the world's richest nation produces more child poverty than any other advanced country. The mass of evidence they assemble points to one set of overwhelming and, alas, bleak conclusions. The United States performs badly indeed, with one-fifth of its children living in poverty, and the situation is actually worsening. Equally worrisome is the finding that American children are less likely to escape from poverty. Upon reading this book one begins to wonder whether a country with so many underprivileged children can sustain its economic leadership much further into the future."
-GØSTA ESPING-ANDERSEN, professor of sociology and university dean, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

"Lee Rainwater and Timothy Smeeding have given us a wonderful gift. Poor Kids in a Rich Country is smart, readable, and attentive to the important questions. Researchers and students of child poverty will long be in their debt."
-SARA MCLANAHAN, professor of sociology and public affairs and director of the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University

In Poor Kids in a Rich Country, Lee Rainwater and Timothy Smeeding ask what it means to be poor in a prosperous nation - especially for any country's most vulnerable citizens, its children. In comparing the situation of American children in low-income families with their counterparts in fourteen other countries—including Western Europe, Australia, and Canada—they provide a powerful perspective on the dynamics of child poverty in the United States.

Based on the rich data available from the transnational Luxembourg Income Study (LIS), Poor Kids in a Rich Country puts child poverty in the United States in an international context. Rainwater and Smeeding find that while the child poverty rate in most countries has been relatively stable over the past 30 years, child poverty has increased markedly in the United States and Britain—two of the world's wealthiest countries. The book delves into the underlying reasons for this difference, examining the mix of earnings and government transfers, such as child allowances, sickness and maternity benefits, unemployment insurance, and other social assistance programs that go into the income packages available to both single- and dual-parent families in each country. Rainwater and Smeeding call for policies to make it easier for working parents to earn a decent living while raising their children—policies such as parental leave, childcare support, increased income supports for working poor families, and a more socially oriented education policy. They make a convincing argument that our definition of poverty should not be based solely on the official poverty line—that is, the minimum income needed to provide a certain level of consumption—but on the social and economic resources necessary for full participation in society.

Combining a wealth of empirical data on international poverty levels with a thoughtful new analysis of how best to use that data, Poor Kids in a Rich Country will provide an essential tool for researchers and policymakers who make decisions about child and family policy.

LEE RAINWATER is professor emeritus of sociology at Harvard University and research director of the Luxembourg Income Study.

TIMOTHY M. SMEEDING is Maxwell Professor of Public Policy, professor of economics and public administration, and director of the Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University. He is also the director of the Luxembourg Income Study.

An Institute for Research on Poverty Affiliated Book on Poverty and Public Policy

This book offers a systematic study of those individuals who derive their livelihood and professional satisfactions from foundation employment above a clerical level. Replies to questionnaires addressed to foundations and to foundation staff, supplemented by other research, enabled the authors to secure a wealth of data, not previously available, concerning such staff personnel. The data relates to their origin, education or training, professional or occupational background, personal qualities, recruitment for foundation service, job specialization in foundations and in-service and on-the-job training, salary levels, retirement, fringe benefits and perquisites of various kinds. These data are systematically analyzed according to the employing foundation's asset size, program, founding auspices, staff size, geographical location, and other variables. The comprehensiveness of the data also makes possible a census of full-time and part-time staff employed by all foundations and better reveals the rather distorted pattern of the distribution of that staff among the employing foundations.

A feature of the study is a chapter that tabulates and analyzes the comments on foundation employment of some 420 foundation executives—on their satisfactions, dissatisfactions, and frustrations and on how foundation employment might be made more attractive. The pros and cons of the related issue of increased professionalization of foundation service is considered in the light of these comments and from the standpoint, also, of the current philanthropic policies of different kinds of foundations. The probable long-term effect on foundation service of certain provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 is also examined.

ARNOLD J. ZURCHER was formerly Executive Director of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and is Professor of Politics at New York University.

JANE DUSTAN is Associate for Program Development of the Association for the Aid of Crippled Children.

"We need you, Madame Curie. Please don't leave. This is a compelling study of why women leave science. It links qualitative and quantitative evidence in a way that is social science at its best. It explains why women exit science more than men and suggests ways to remedy this problem. Leaving Science should be read by everyone concerned with maintaining a healthy U.S. science work force, from the science advisor to the president to members of for the American Association for the Advancement of Science."
-RICHARD B. FREEMAN, Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics, Harvard University

"Leaving Science provides an exceedingly thorough examination of factors leading individuals to exit science. It is a must read for anyone concerned with the United States' capacity to continue to innovate, especially given recent events that discourage the entrance of foreign- born and foreign-trained into U.S. science. Anne Preston's focus on retention reminds the reader that the pipeline in is only half of the story. A vibrant scientific workforce depends on retaining those already trained, as well as recruiting new talent to science. Preston's analysis of factors leading to exit is well crafted. The combination of recounting interview data with a careful analysis of survey data provides a rich framework for exploring why individuals leave science and how exit factors vary by gender."
-PAULA STEPHAN, professor of economics, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University

"Leaving Science is fascinating. It is rich social science, augmenting statistical analysis with interviews and individual work histories and applying these insights to policy. I hope that it will be widely read by academic administrators and research managers, as well as by experts on the scientific and engineering workforce. The picture it presents of why men and women leave science is highly nuanced, but there are lessons to be learned by everyone involved in managing and living scientific careers."
-CHARLOTTE KUH, deputy executive director, Policy and Global Affairs Division, The National Academies

The past thirty years have witnessed a dramatic decline in the number of U.S. students pursuing advanced degrees in science and an equally dramatic increase in the number of professionals leaving scientific careers. Leaving Science provides the first significant examination of this worrisome new trend. Economist Anne E. Preston examines a wide range of important questions: Why do professionals who have invested extensive time and money on a rigorous scientific education leave the field? Where do these scientists go and what do they do? What policies might aid in retaining and improving the quality of life for science personnel?

Based on data from a large national survey of nearly 1,700 people who received university degrees in the natural sciences or engineering between 1965 and 1990 and a subsequent in-depth follow-up survey, Leaving Science provides a comprehensive portrait of the career trajectories of men and women who have earned science degrees. Alarmingly, by the end of the follow-up survey, only 51 percent of the original respondents were still working in science. During this time, federal funding for scientific research decreased dramatically relative to private funding. Consequently, the direction of scientific research has increasingly been dictated by market forces, and many scientists have left academic research for income and opportunity in business and industry. Preston identifies the main reasons for people leaving scientific careers as dissatisfaction with compensation and career advancement, difficulties balancing family and career responsibilities, and changing professional interests. Highlighting the difference between male and female exit patterns, Preston shows that most men left because they found scientific salaries low relative to perceived alternatives in other fields, while most women left scientific careers in response to feelings of alienation due to lack of career guidance, difficulty relating to their work, and insufficient time for their family obligations.

Leaving Science contains a unique blend of rigorous statistical analysis with voices of individual scientists, ensuring a rich and detailed understanding of an issue with profound consequences for the nation's future. A better understanding of why professionals leave science can help lead to changes in scientific education and occupations and make the scientific workplace more attractive and hospitable to career men and women.

ANNE E. PRESTON is associate professor of economics at Haverford College, Pennsylvania.

"Harriet Presser has provided us with an extraordinary, well-written, important piece of research that greatly reduces our ignorance about shiftwork. The book deserves a wide audience among academics and policy-makers."
-INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS REVIEW

"An impressive analysis of the impact of working time on the American family. Working in a 24/7 Economy should be required reading for everyone engaged in work scheduling policy, practice, or research!"
-DONALD I. TEPAS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT AND SECRETARY, SHIFTWORK COMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

"Noted demographer Harriet Presser has spent much of the last two decades investigating the implications of shift work for families. Her masterful synthesis of the literature reveals that nonstandard hours are not only here to stay, but also that they pose important, often unrecognized challenges for families, especially for couples and single parents raising young children. This book is must reading, not only for scholars who are interested specifically in the work-family interface but for researchers in the fields of business and management, work and occupations, labor economics, industrial-organizational psychology, family studies, and child development. Presser's conclusions provide important insights not only for the research community, but for corporate management, policy makers, and community leaders. An important take-home message is that we can no longer ignore the timing of work hours and how those hours dovetail-or wreak havoc-with family life."
-NAN CROUTER, PROFESSOR OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR WORK AND FAMILY RESEARCH, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY

"Few studies have even touched on this topic, yet Harriet Presser covers it thoroughly, deliberately, and even-handedly. In other words, while some explorers are content to proclaim that they have discovered new land, Presser sends back a surprisingly complete map, filled with the main rivers, mountains, plains, and more than a few hidden valleys. I cannot remember the last time I read a book containing so much thoroughly original work. This is the place to learn about night, evening, and weekend work and how it impacts family life."
-JERRY A. JACOBS, MERRIAM TERM PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

"The complicated and difficult lives of workers forced to work at times others sleep, play, and have normal family time together is documented in this meticulous study. Harriet Presser describes the severe problems of broken marriages and problematic child care arrangements that two-fifths of our work force confronts in an economy in which there are no time boundaries. This is must reading for scholars, policy-makers, and the public."
-CYNTHIA FUCHS EPSTEIN, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR, GRADUATE CENTER, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

An economy that operates 24/7—as ours now does—imposes extraordinary burdens on workers. Two-fifths of all employed Americans work mostly during evenings, nights, weekends, or on rotating shifts outside the traditional 9-to-5 work day. The pervasiveness of nonstandard work schedules has become a significant social phenomenon, with important implications for the health and well-being of workers and their families. In Working in a 24/7 Economy, Harriet Presser looks at the effects of nonstandard work schedules on family functioning and shows how these schedules disrupt marriages and force families to cobble together complex child-care arrangements that should concern us all.

The number of hours Americans work has received ample attention, but the issue of which hours—or days—Americans work has received much less scrutiny. Working in a 24/7 Economy provides a comprehensive overview of who works nonstandard schedules and why. Presser argues that the growth in women's employment, technological change, and other demographic changes over the past thirty years gave rise to the growing demand for late-shift and weekend employment in the service sector. She also demonstrates that most people who work these hours do so primarily because it is a job requirement, rather than a choice based on personal considerations. Presser shows that the consequences of working nonstandard schedules often differ for men and women since housework and child-rearing remain assigned primarily to women even when both spouses are employed. As with many other social problems, the burden of these schedules disproportionately affects the working poor, reflecting their lack of options in the workplace and adding to their disadvantage. Presser also documents how such work arrangements have created a new rhythm of daily life within many American families, including those with two earners and absent fathers. With spouses often not at home together in the evenings or nights, and parents often not at home with their children at such times, the relatively new concept of "home-time" has emerged as primary concern for families across the nation.

Employing a wealth of empirical data, Working in a 24/7 Economy shows that nonstandard work schedules are both highly prevalent among American families and generate a level of complexity in family functioning that demands greater public attention. Presser makes a convincing case for expanded research and meaningful policy initiatives to address this growing social phenomenon.

HARRIET B. PRESSER is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Maryland.

"Portes suggests that immigration constitutes an especially appropriate Mertonian 'strategic research site' for economic sociology in that it provides very good opportunities for investigating the embeddedness of economic relationships in social situations....the contributors expand the conventional domain of economic sociology quite literally in both time and space."—Contemporary Sociology

"Alejandro Portes and his splendid band of collaborators make clear that the causes, processes, and consequences of migration vary dramatically from group to group, that a group's history makes a profound difference to its fate in the American economy. They have produced a sinewy book, a book worth arguing with."—Charles Tilly, Columbia University

The Economic Sociology of Immigration forges a dynamic link between the theoretical innovations of economic sociology with the latest empirical findings from immigration research, an area of critical concern as the problems of ethnic poverty and inequality become increasingly profound. Alejandro Portes' lucid overview of sociological approaches to economic phenomena provides the framework for six thoughtful, wide-ranging investigations into ethnic and immigrant labor networks and social resources, entrepreneurship, and cultural assimilation. Mark Granovetter illustrates how small businesses built on the bonds of ethnicity and kinship can, under certain conditions, flourish remarkably well. Bryan R. Roberts demonstrates how immigrant groups' expectations of the duration of their stay influence their propensity toward entrepreneurship. Ivan Light and Carolyn Rosenstein chart how specific metropolitan environments have stimulated or impeded entrepreneurial ventures in five ethnic populations. Saskia Sassen provides a revealing analysis of the unexpectedly flexible and vital labor market networks maintained between immigrants and their native countries, while M. Patricia Fernandez Kelly looks specifically at the black inner city to examine how insular cultural values hinder the acquisition of skills and jobs outside the neighborhood. Alejandro Portes also depicts the difference between the attitudes of American-born youths and those of recent immigrants and its effect on the economic success of immigrant children.

ALEJANDRO PORTES is professor of sociology at Princeton University and faculty associate of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs.

CONTRIBUTORS: Mark Granovetter, M. Patricia Fernández Kelly, Ivan Light, Alejandro Portes, Bryan R. Roberts, Carolyn Rosenstein, and Saskia Sassen.

"To study the life course is a life-long commitment. Where do the ideas that motivate longitudinal research come from? How do indefatigable investigators find the energy and resources to sustain longitudinal studies? The chapters in Looking at Lives reveal the genius, passion, and dedication that lie behind some of the most important longitudinal studies of human development ever conducted."
-Avshalom Caspi, Institute of Psychiatry, London, and University of Wisconsin, Madison

"This book is a watershed event in the scientific study of human development. It demonstrates in singularly compelling ways the precise methodological details that are required to conduct exemplary longitudinal research and that are involved in exploiting for new purposes existing longitudinal data archives."
-Richard M. Lerner, Tufts University

"Looking at Lives is a must-read for all of us involved in landmark longitudinal studies of the twentieth century. Some of the real pioneers in the long-term developmental study of humans are here as authors, describing the important details of their personal involvement in their work as well as the substance of their studies. Among other things, this volume could easily provide core reading for courses in research methods for longitudinal studies."
-Lewis Lipsitt, Brown University

The impact of long-term longitudinal studies on the landscape of 20th century social and behavioral science cannot be overstated. The field of life course studies has grown exponentially since its inception in the 1950s, and now influences methodologies as well as expectations for all academic research. Looking at Lives offers an unprecedented "insider's view" into the intentions, methods, and findings of researchers engaged in some of the twentieth century's landmark studies. In this volume, eminent American scholars—many of them pioneers in longitudinal studies—provide frank and illuminating insights into the difficulties and the unique scientific benefits of mounting studies that track people's lives over a long period of time.

Looking at Lives includes studies from a range of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and education, which together cover a span of more than fifty years. The contributors pay particular attention to the changing historical, cultural, and scientific context of their work, as well as the theoretical and methodological changes that have occurred in their fields over decades. What emerges is a clear indication of the often unexpected effects these studies have had on public policies and public opinion—especially as they relate to such issues as the connection between poverty and criminal behavior, or the consequences of teen-age pregnancy and drug use for inner-city youth. For example, David Weikart reveals how his long-term research on preschool intervention projects, begun in 1959, permitted him to show how surprisingly effective preschool education can be in improving the lives of disadvantaged children. In another study, John Laub and Robert Sampson build on findings from a groundbreaking study begun by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck in the 1950s to reveal the myriad ways in which juvenile delinquency can predict criminal behavior in adults. And Arland Thornton, Ronald Freedman, and William Axinn employ an intergenerational study of women and their children begun in 1962 to examine the substantial relaxation of social mores for family and individual behavior in the latter decades of the 20th century.

Looking at Lives is full of striking testimony to the importance of long-term, longitudinal studies. As a unique chronicle of the origins and development of longitudinal studies in America, this collection will be an invaluable aid to 21st century investigators who seek to build on the successes and the experiences of the pioneers in life-course studies.

ERIN PHELPS is associate director, Murray Research Center, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University.

FRANK F. FURSTENBERG, JR. is the Zellerbach Family Professor of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania.

ANNE COLBY is senior scholar, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

CONTRIBUTORS: Karl L. Alexander, William G. Axinn, Ann F. Brunswick, Beverly D. Cairns, Robert B. Cairns, Greg J. Duncan, Glen H. Elder Jr., Doris Entwisle, Ronald Freedman, Janet Zollinger Giele, John H. Laub, John Modell, Frank L. Mott, Linda Steffel Olson, Robert J. Sampson, Arland Thornton, George E. Vaillant, David P. Weikart, Emmy E. Werner.

Presents a collection of papers by economists theorizing on the roles of altruism and morality versus self-interest in the shaping of human behavior and institutions. Specifically, the authors examine why some persons behave in an altruistic way without any apparent reward, thus defying the economist's model of utility maximization. The chapters are accompanied by commentaries from representatives of other disciplines, including law and philosophy.

EDMUND S. PHELPS is professor of economics at Columbia University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Kenneth J. Arrow, William Baumol, Bruce R. Bolnick, James M. Buchanan, Guido Calabresi, Peter Hammond, Edward F. McClennen, Roland N. McKean, Thomas Nagel, Wilfried Pauwels, Edmund S. Phelps, Amartya K. Sen, Karl Shell, William S. Vickrey, and Burton A. Weisbrod

2009 Noteworthy Book in Industrial Relations and Labor Economics, Princeton University Industrial Relations Section

“Gendered Tradeoffs is an important contribution to an emerging literature that finds paradoxical or unintended consequences of seemingly egalitarian public policies. For instance, after years of lauding the ‘Nordic nirvanas’ for their menu of policies that promote high rates of mothers’ employment—public child care, well-paid and lengthy parental leave, and reduced working hours—scholars now increasingly worry that generous parental leave and part-time work in particular contribute to employer discrimination against women, especially in the private sector, and occupational segregation. Pettit and Hook take this discussion further by examining the trade-offs present across a wide array of countries and policy models. . . . Gendered Tradeoffs represents an important advance in our thinking about the multifaceted intersections of gender, class, and public policy.”
—Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal 

“Becky Pettit and Jennifer L. Hook have asked exactly the right questions, placing this book on the frontier of comparative research on women, work, and social policy. After a generation of researchers assessed the advantageous effects of work-family policies, comparative scholars are now focused on understanding and untangling the possibility of unintended consequences—especially those that might worsen aspects of gender inequality in the labor market. Pettit and Hook conclude that some institutions that enable high levels of women’s employment may, at the same time, reduce the relative quality of that employment. While some of the volume’s conclusions are open to debate, Gendered Tradeoffs propels this crucial line of scholarship forward in leaps and bounds.”
—Janet Gornick, director, Luxembourg Income Study, and professor of political science and sociology, Graduate Center, CUNY 

“Becky Pettit and Jennifer L. Hook’s well-executed study is impressive in scope. They bring together disparate facets of gender inequality which are typically considered separately. The result is an intriguing thesis about tradeoffs between inclusion and equality that deserves wide attention.”
—Jerry A. Jacobs, professor of sociology, University of Pennsylvania

Gender inequality in the workplace persists, even in nations with some of the most progressive laws and generous family support policies. Yet the dimensions on which inequality is measured—levels of women’s employment, number of hours worked, sex segregation by occupations and wages—tell very different stories across industrialized nations. By examining federally guaranteed parental leave, publicly provided child care, and part-time work, and looking across multiple dimensions of inequality, Becky Pettit and Jennifer Hook document the links between specific policies and aggregate outcomes. They disentangle the complex factors, from institutional policies to personal choices, that influence economic inequality.

Gendered Tradeoffs draws on data from twenty-one industrialized nations to compare women’s and men’s economic outcomes across nations, and over time, in search of a deeper understanding of the underpinnings of gender inequality in different labor markets. Pettit and Hook develop the idea that there are tradeoffs between different aspects of gender inequality in the economy and explain how those tradeoffs are shaped by individuals, markets, and states. They argue that each policy or condition should be considered along two axes—whether it promotes women’s inclusion in or exclusion from the labor market and whether it promotes gender equality or inequality among women in the labor market. Some policies advance one objective while undercutting the other.

The volume begins by reflecting on gender inequality in labor markets measured by different indicators. It goes on to develop the idea that there may be tradeoffs inherent among different aspects of inequality and in different policy solutions. These ideas are explored in four empirical chapters on employment, work hours, occupational sex segregation, and the gender wage gap. The penultimate chapter examines whether a similar framework is relevant for understanding inequality among women in the United States and Germany. The book concludes with a thorough discussion of the policies and conditions that underpin gender inequality in the workplace.

The central thesis of Gendered Tradeoffs is that gender inequality in the workplace is generated and reinforced by national policies and conditions. The contours of inequality across and within countries are shaped by specific aspects of social policy that either relieve or concentrate the demands of care giving within households—usually in the hands of women—and at the same time shape workplace expectations. Pettit and Hook make a strong case that equality for women in the workplace depends not on whether women are included in the labor market but on how they are included.

BECKY PETTIT is associate professor of sociology at the University of Washington.

JENNIFER L. HOOK is assistant professor of sociology and faculty associate of the Population Research Institute at Pennsylvania State University.

"The contentious politics of the U.S. census, the data needs of social scientists, and America's changing racial sensibilities all come together in this rich and provocative volume. A remarkable array of contributors lay out the value considerations as well as the technical challenges raised by new modes of classifying races in a society marked by more and more interracial unions. Present dilemmas are put in broad historical perspective. Researchers, teachers, students, and the educated public will all find much of value in The New Race Question."
-Theda Skocpol, Harvard University

"For census 2000, the federal government made a historic decision to allow Americans to count themselves as members of more than one race. In this extraordinarily thorough and penetrating collection of essays, leading scholars explore the origins, implementation, and likely consequences of this crucial policy. An indispensable guide to the changing nature of race and racism in America."
-Gary Gerstle, University of Maryland

"The New Race Question is an indispensable guide for those perplexed by the complex societal and policy ramifications of the U.S. census's acknowledgment of racial mixture in 2000, perhaps the most momentous change in the measurement of race since the Civil War destroyed the equation of a black person who is not free with three-fifths of a white."
-Richard D. Alba, State University of New York at Albany

The change in the way the federal government asked for information about race in the 2000 census marked an important turning point in the way Americans measure race. By allowing respondents to choose more than one racial category for the first time, the Census Bureau challenged strongly held beliefs about the nature and definition of race in our society. The New Race Question is a wide-ranging examination of what we know about racial enumeration, the likely effects of the census change, and possible policy implications for the future.

The growing incidence of interracial marriage and childrearing led to the change in the census race question. Yet this reality conflicts with the need for clear racial categories required by anti-discrimination and voting rights laws and affirmative action policies. How will racial combinations be aggregated under the Census's new race question? Who will decide how a respondent who lists more than one race will be counted? How will the change affect established policies for documenting and redressing discrimination? The New Race Question opens with an exploration of what the attempt to count multiracials has shown in previous censuses and other large surveys. Contributor Reynolds Farley reviews the way in which the census has traditionally measured race, and shows that although the numbers of people choosing more than one race are not high at the national level, they can make a real difference in population totals at the county level. The book then takes up the debate over how the change in measurement will affect national policy in areas that rely on race counts, especially in civil rights law, but also in health, education, and income reporting. How do we relate data on poverty, graduation rates, and disease collected in 2000 to the rates calculated under the old race question? A technical appendix provides a useful manual for bridging old census data to new.

The book concludes with a discussion of the politics of racial enumeration. Hugh Davis Graham examines recent history to ask why some groups were determined to be worthy of special government protections and programs, while others were not. Posing the volume's ultimate question, Jennifer Hochschild asks whether the official recognition of multiracials marks the beginning of the end of federal use of race data, and whether that is a good or a bad thing for society?

The New Race Question brings to light the many ways in which a seemingly small change in surveying and categorizing race can have far reaching effects and expose deep fissures in our society.

JOEL PERLMANN is senior scholar and research professor at the Levy Economics Institute, Bard College.

MARY C. WATERS is professor of sociology, Harvard University.
Copublished with the Levy Economics Institute

A Volume in the RSF Census Series