Split labor market theory
Split labor market theory, developed by sociologist Edna Bonacich, posits that economic competition and class relations, rather than racial or cultural differences, are the fundamental causes of racial and ethnic antagonism. According to this theory, a split labor market arises when the labor costs for different groups of comparably skilled workers diverge due to systematic economic and political disadvantages faced by certain racial or ethnic minorities. This divergence occurs when minority workers, often facing financial desperation and political marginalization, accept lower wages and poorer working conditions, thereby threatening the job security of majority workers.
Bonacich suggests that the majority workers may respond to this competition in three ways: by attempting to exclude minority workers from the labor market, by establishing a caste system that confines minorities to less desirable jobs, or by advocating for equal labor costs through government intervention and unionization. These responses can foster racism and increase tensions within the working class. The theory distinguishes itself from neo-Marxist perspectives, suggesting that racial or ethnic conflict is not actively cultivated by capitalists but is rather a consequence of competition among workers. Overall, split labor market theory emphasizes the internal dynamics of labor competition as a driver of social conflict, offering a lens through which to understand the interplay between race, class, and labor in society.
On this Page
Split labor market theory
Sociologist Edna Bonacich’s split labor market theory suggests that the underlying causes of racial and ethnic antagonism are economic competition and class relations, not racial or cultural differences. Split labor markets develop when labor costs diverge for two or more groups of comparably skilled workers. Labor costs are a function of wages and the expenses associated with workers’ recruitment, training, benefits, and propensity to unionize. Labor costs diverge when a particular racial or ethnic group systematically experiences economic and political disadvantages. If they are financially desperate and politically weak, minority workers may be subject to exploitation and may have to accept lower wages, longer hours, and undesirable working conditions. As a response to their vulnerability, members of minority groups often migrate to take advantage of better opportunities in developing areas. Labor migration facilitates intergroup contact and threatens higher-cost majority workers with displacement. Regional differences in wages and living standards can exacerbate unequal labor costs. In addition, if migrants have a short-term orientation to employment, they may resist the labor unions of the existing workforce.
According to the theory, split labor markets infuse class conflict with racial or ethnic antagonism because employers will hire minority workers whenever their lower labor costs increase the efficiency of capitalist production. Majority workers, in turn, can respond to a split labor market in three ways. First, they can attempt to exclude the minority group from the labor market. Scholar Terry Boswell has argued that the Chinese exclusion movement of the 1870s and 1880s resulted from the political mobilization of White workers who were threatened by Chinese immigration. Second, majority workers can attempt to institutionalize a caste system that relegates the minority group to less desirable jobs. Bonacich suggests that as Black Americans migrated out of the South during the 1930s, many labor unions attempted to reduce racial job competition by confining Black workers to unskilled positions. Both exclusion movements and caste systems foster racism, nativism, and racial or ethnic violence. Finally, majority workers can attempt to equalize labor costs: They can lobby the government to impose or enforce equal employment standards, or they can pursue comprehensive union organizing. This strategy undercuts the potential for minority strike-breaking and related conflict. Bonacich has argued that the New Deal legislation of the 1930s helped to equalize labor costs and encouraged US labor unions to incorporate Black workers.
Split labor market theory differs from neo-Marxist perspectives that attribute racial and ethnic conflict to the divide-and-conquer tactics of capitalists. Instead, racial and ethnic antagonism results from dynamics internal to the working class. Although employers may benefit, they do not actively cultivate racial or ethnic conflict. The theory also differs from dual and segmented labor market approaches, which explain racial and ethnic inequality in terms of groups’ concentration in core and peripheral labor markets. In a dual or segmented labor market, human capital differences prevent majority and minority workers from competing directly for the same jobs. In contrast, the split labor market perspective focuses on the consequences of job competition between different racial or ethnic groups.
Bibliography
Ashenfelter, Orley, and Albert Rees. Discrimination in Labor Markets. Princeton University Press, 2015.
Brown, Cliff. Racial Conflicts and Violence in the Labor Market: Roots in the 1919 Steel Strike. Routledge, 2014.
Restifo, Salvatore J., et al. "Segmented Assimilation, Split Labor Markets, and Racial/Ethnic Inequality the Case of Early-Twentieth-Century New York." American Sociological Review, vol. 78, no. 5, 2013, pp. 897-924.
Rosenfeld, Jake, and Meredith Kleykamp. "Organized Labor and Racial Wage Inequality in the United States." AJS, vol. 117, no. 5, 2012, pp. 1460.
“A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labor Market.” Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, inequality.stanford.edu/publications/media/details/theory-ethnic-antagonism-split-labor-market. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
Wilson, William Julius. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. University of Chicago Press, 2012.