AFFIRMATIVE ACTION VS. RESERVATIONS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR: THE UNITED STATES AND INDIA

Theodore P. Wright, Jr.

The IUP Journal of Governance and Public Policy, 2007, vol. II, issue 2, 19-26

Abstract: Some opponents of extension of “reservations” in India have voiced a preference for what in the United States is called “Affirmative Action”. Historical differences in the two societies, one originating in slavery, the other in castes, explain some of the varied policy preferences. Americans tend to oppose quotas because they were used to exclude Jews in the past. Quotas are rooted in Indian colonial and post-colonial experience. The Gandhian era of the Indian National Movement and American experience in fighting fascism and later communism reduced the resistance of their respective majorities (Hindu and white Christian) to give benefits to the minorities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked a crucial shift from the negative policy of outlawing discrimination to a positive one of actively increasing minority participation in education and employment in America. Some American businessmen actually aided affirmative action because it lowered wages by increasing the pool of eligible qualified recruits. Affirmative action applied in the United States to both public and private employment from the beginning, while in India it provided quotas only in the public sector until 2006 because of its importance in a semi-socialised economy until 1991. Another reason is the relatively large size of the informal sector in India, to which quotas would not apply. Both countries have experienced an expansion of various eligible categories, which has stiffened resistance by those who are ascriptively not eligible. “Compassion fatigue” has set in both countries which leads to electoral pressures to undo or terminate both kinds of programmes. Opponents point out the injustice of continuing the benefits to the “creamy layer” of the generally disadvantaged groups. Long duration of such programmes also arouses opposition as they become a vested interest. Since it is a less blatant “zero-sum-game”, affirmative action is more likely to persist and produce the desired results.

Date: 2007
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:icf:icfjgp:v:02:y:2007:i:2:p:19-26

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The IUP Journal of Governance and Public Policy from IUP Publications
Bibliographic data for series maintained by G R K Murty ().