NIMBY—or “Not in my Back Yard”—opposition against renters has long defined segregation and housing markets in the United States. Recent years, however, have seen the rise of a new phenomenon: YIMBY or “Yes in my Back Yard” efforts, which have aimed to expand affordable housing supply for renters in lower-poverty places that have long restricted it. The clash between NIMBY and YIMBY poses a problem: how do actors effectuate change in markets where they face difficulties mobilizing and building coalitions? This article presents data on an example where developers have made demonstrable affordable housing gains: properties funded by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit have been widely built in suburban Chicago, specifically in lower-poverty areas. Drawing on interviews with the developers who build this housing, our findings show that developers often favor what we refer to as anti-collective action—tactics meant to sideline and circumvent audiences that developers deem unwinnable, rather than persuade or mobilize them. Findings therefore urge more attention to actors’ perceptions of the possibilities and limits of collective action—what we refer to as coalitional latitude—which vary by setting, and condition the choices and tactics that actors pursue. We explore implications for sociological work on the processes and conditions of change in economic fields.
邻避-或“不要在我的后院”-反对租房者长期以来定义了美国的种族隔离和住房市场。然而，近年来出现了一种新现象：YIMBY（即“Yes in my backyard”）活动，其目的是为长期受到限制的较贫困地区的租房者扩大经济适用房供应。邻避和YIMBY之间的冲突提出了一个问题：行动者如何在他们面临动员和建立联盟困难的市场中实现变革？这篇文章提供了一个例子的数据，在这个例子中，开发商已经取得了明显的经济适用房收益：在芝加哥郊区，特别是在较低贫困地区，由低收入住房税收抵免资助的房产已经被广泛建造。根据对建造这些房屋的开发商的采访，我们的发现表明，开发商通常倾向于我们所说的反集体行动策略，即边缘化和避开开发商认为无法赢得的受众，而不是说服或动员他们。因此，研究结果敦促人们更多地关注行为者对集体行动的可能性和局限性的看法——我们称之为联盟纬度——它因环境而异，并制约着行为者所追求的选择和策略。我们将探讨经济领域变化的过程和条件对社会学工作的影响。
{"title":"From persuasion to evasion: anti -collective action and the making of affordable housing in suburban Chicago","authors":"John N Robinson, Lillian Leung","doi":"10.1093/sf/soag022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soag022","url":null,"abstract":"NIMBY—or “Not in my Back Yard”—opposition against renters has long defined segregation and housing markets in the United States. Recent years, however, have seen the rise of a new phenomenon: YIMBY or “Yes in my Back Yard” efforts, which have aimed to expand affordable housing supply for renters in lower-poverty places that have long restricted it. The clash between NIMBY and YIMBY poses a problem: how do actors effectuate change in markets where they face difficulties mobilizing and building coalitions? This article presents data on an example where developers have made demonstrable affordable housing gains: properties funded by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit have been widely built in suburban Chicago, specifically in lower-poverty areas. Drawing on interviews with the developers who build this housing, our findings show that developers often favor what we refer to as anti-collective action—tactics meant to sideline and circumvent audiences that developers deem unwinnable, rather than persuade or mobilize them. Findings therefore urge more attention to actors’ perceptions of the possibilities and limits of collective action—what we refer to as coalitional latitude—which vary by setting, and condition the choices and tactics that actors pursue. We explore implications for sociological work on the processes and conditions of change in economic fields.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147495349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We explore the empirical puzzle of how conflicting attitudes and desires evolve and exert competing behavioral influences, focusing on the socially contentious case of premarital sex among young women in the United States. Leveraging intensive panel data collected for up to 2.5 years among a large, population-based sample of unmarried women aged 18–22, we show that women’s sexual attitudes and desires often follow distinct trajectories that eventually come into conflict because, on average, their desires are more socially malleable than their attitudes. When attitudes and desires disaccord, young women’s sexual activity and contraceptive use generally reflect their desires more than their attitudes, especially as their desires intensify. Examining attitudes and desires together reveals new insights into how young adults experience and maneuver socially contentious decisions and further illuminates one reason why attitudes are imperfect predictors of behavior.
{"title":"Discordant attitudes, desires, and behaviors: sexual cognitive dissonance in the transition to adulthood","authors":"Michelle A Eilers, Abigail Weitzman","doi":"10.1093/sf/soag021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soag021","url":null,"abstract":"We explore the empirical puzzle of how conflicting attitudes and desires evolve and exert competing behavioral influences, focusing on the socially contentious case of premarital sex among young women in the United States. Leveraging intensive panel data collected for up to 2.5 years among a large, population-based sample of unmarried women aged 18–22, we show that women’s sexual attitudes and desires often follow distinct trajectories that eventually come into conflict because, on average, their desires are more socially malleable than their attitudes. When attitudes and desires disaccord, young women’s sexual activity and contraceptive use generally reflect their desires more than their attitudes, especially as their desires intensify. Examining attitudes and desires together reveals new insights into how young adults experience and maneuver socially contentious decisions and further illuminates one reason why attitudes are imperfect predictors of behavior.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147489482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gender segregation is a core indicator of organizational inequality with downstream implications for wages, authority, and career mobility. Its causes and consequences have been studied extensively, yet much less is known about the organizational practices that may reduce it. This study addresses this gap by examining the effects of accountability practices on workplace gender integration. Scholars have identified three key aspects of organizational accountability: setting diversity goals, assigning responsibility, and monitoring and reviewing personnel decisions. These practices are widely believed to be effective; however, surprisingly little empirical research has examined which practices work to reduce inequality. Previous studies have primarily focused on assigning responsibility to a staff position or department (e.g., human resource or diversity manager), with few examining diversity goals or monitoring and reviewing practices. Analyzing a nationally representative panel dataset of British workplaces (2004–2011), this study finds that implementing diversity goals, assigning oversight to a human resource professional, and monitoring and reviewing personnel decisions significantly reduce gender segregation. These effects remain robust across models controlling for other practices theorized to reduce gender segregation, women’s managerial representation, and changes in employment during the Great Recession. These findings underscore how accountability-based bureaucratic reforms can advance workplace integration.
{"title":"Organizational accountability and gender segregation: can bureaucratic reforms drive organizational change?","authors":"Kevin Stainback","doi":"10.1093/sf/soag003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soag003","url":null,"abstract":"Gender segregation is a core indicator of organizational inequality with downstream implications for wages, authority, and career mobility. Its causes and consequences have been studied extensively, yet much less is known about the organizational practices that may reduce it. This study addresses this gap by examining the effects of accountability practices on workplace gender integration. Scholars have identified three key aspects of organizational accountability: setting diversity goals, assigning responsibility, and monitoring and reviewing personnel decisions. These practices are widely believed to be effective; however, surprisingly little empirical research has examined which practices work to reduce inequality. Previous studies have primarily focused on assigning responsibility to a staff position or department (e.g., human resource or diversity manager), with few examining diversity goals or monitoring and reviewing practices. Analyzing a nationally representative panel dataset of British workplaces (2004–2011), this study finds that implementing diversity goals, assigning oversight to a human resource professional, and monitoring and reviewing personnel decisions significantly reduce gender segregation. These effects remain robust across models controlling for other practices theorized to reduce gender segregation, women’s managerial representation, and changes in employment during the Great Recession. These findings underscore how accountability-based bureaucratic reforms can advance workplace integration.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"347 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147319556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Murat Haner, Melissa M Sloan, Justin T Pickett, Francis T Cullen
As domestic terrorism has become central to US national security, the American public has shown divided reactions to political violence. In the current context of increasing political polarization and racial tension, we draw on social identity theory to compare responses to Islamist, left-wing, and right-wing terrorism and identify moderators of those responses. Analyses of data from a 2022 national survey experiment (n = 1,300) reveal that Americans’ responses to terrorism depend heavily on who is doing the terrorizing. Whereas Americans are equally outraged by Islamist, right-wing, and left-wing terrorism, support for controversial policies varies by terrorist type, with greater support for the use of torture on Islamist terrorists. Our findings also point toward the importance of Republicanism and white nationalist sentiment. Compared to Democrats, Republicans were more supportive of policy and the use of torture targeting Islamist terrorists and less supportive of policy targeting right-wing extremists. In addition, white nationalist sentiment corresponded to increased support for aggressive counterterrorism policy and the use of torture when applied to left-wing and Islamist terrorists. As public opinion is key to the development of government policies, it is critical that policymakers recognize the role of outgroup animosity in public support of counterterrorism measures.
{"title":"Outgroups and ingroups: how support for torture and aggressive counterterrorism policies varies by extremist type","authors":"Murat Haner, Melissa M Sloan, Justin T Pickett, Francis T Cullen","doi":"10.1093/sf/soaf190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf190","url":null,"abstract":"As domestic terrorism has become central to US national security, the American public has shown divided reactions to political violence. In the current context of increasing political polarization and racial tension, we draw on social identity theory to compare responses to Islamist, left-wing, and right-wing terrorism and identify moderators of those responses. Analyses of data from a 2022 national survey experiment (n = 1,300) reveal that Americans’ responses to terrorism depend heavily on who is doing the terrorizing. Whereas Americans are equally outraged by Islamist, right-wing, and left-wing terrorism, support for controversial policies varies by terrorist type, with greater support for the use of torture on Islamist terrorists. Our findings also point toward the importance of Republicanism and white nationalist sentiment. Compared to Democrats, Republicans were more supportive of policy and the use of torture targeting Islamist terrorists and less supportive of policy targeting right-wing extremists. In addition, white nationalist sentiment corresponded to increased support for aggressive counterterrorism policy and the use of torture when applied to left-wing and Islamist terrorists. As public opinion is key to the development of government policies, it is critical that policymakers recognize the role of outgroup animosity in public support of counterterrorism measures.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145575554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although economic inequality and economic segregation represent fundamental challenges of contemporary societies, their causal and empirical connections remain unclear. In particular, the direction of causality, causal pathways, and temporalities are not evident in the literature. This gap has two probable origins: (1) the discussion is dominated by a handful of studies from the United Stated published in the 2000s. This comes at the expense of a more plural and complex understanding of the phenomena in the rest of the world. (2) The literature on inequality and that of segregation are segmented by disciplines operating at different scales with corresponding theories, actors and mechanisms. To address these issues, I conduct an extensive systematic literature review of articles linking economic inequality to economic segregation across multiple languages and disciplines. Starting from 20,000+ references, I identify 80 relevant research articles to review. Most conclude that variations in economic segregation follow differences in economic inequality in the short term and that reverse causality is more probable in the longer term. The housing market is the most cited mediator between economic inequality and economic segregation, and a diversity of theories are mobilized to explain their empirical connections. Many articles are not presently comparable, but compatible definitions and measurements of inequality and segregation are rising.
{"title":"Economic inequality and economic segregation: a systematic review of causal pathways","authors":"Clémentine Cottineau-Mugadza","doi":"10.1093/sf/soaf195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf195","url":null,"abstract":"Although economic inequality and economic segregation represent fundamental challenges of contemporary societies, their causal and empirical connections remain unclear. In particular, the direction of causality, causal pathways, and temporalities are not evident in the literature. This gap has two probable origins: (1) the discussion is dominated by a handful of studies from the United Stated published in the 2000s. This comes at the expense of a more plural and complex understanding of the phenomena in the rest of the world. (2) The literature on inequality and that of segregation are segmented by disciplines operating at different scales with corresponding theories, actors and mechanisms. To address these issues, I conduct an extensive systematic literature review of articles linking economic inequality to economic segregation across multiple languages and disciplines. Starting from 20,000+ references, I identify 80 relevant research articles to review. Most conclude that variations in economic segregation follow differences in economic inequality in the short term and that reverse causality is more probable in the longer term. The housing market is the most cited mediator between economic inequality and economic segregation, and a diversity of theories are mobilized to explain their empirical connections. Many articles are not presently comparable, but compatible definitions and measurements of inequality and segregation are rising.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145575557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study advances sociological theories of motherhood-based workplace inequalities by examining how frontline managers shape mothers’ access to stable work schedules in the US service sector. Prior research has shown that mothers in the US service sector experience intense conflict between the time demands of motherhood and employers’ expectations that employees will be available to work unstable work schedules, yet little work has investigated sources of variation in mothers’ exposure to schedule instability. Building on and synthesizing theories of homophily, expectation states theory, and “queen bee” theories of women in management, I propose a model in which managers’ own gender and parenthood status structure their responses to their employees’ scheduling needs. Female managers who are mothers are theorized to exhibit homophily and produce motherhood scheduling advantages, while female managers without children are expected to penalize mothers. Analyses of survey and experimental data collected from a large national sample of US retail and food service workers support this theoretical synthesis, showing that motherhood advantages in scheduling appear under male managers and female managers who are mothers, but erode under female managers without children. By positioning motherhood—not gender alone—as the status dimension that most directly collides with ideal worker norms, this work highlights an important determinant of when women in management act as agents of change and when they reinforce inequality. More broadly, this study frames managerial discretion as a key mechanism linking status expectations, manager-employee relations, and organizational outcomes, advancing theory on the micro-foundations of workplace inequality.
{"title":"Managing motherhood: how “queen bee” managers in the US service sector reduce motherhood advantages in work scheduling","authors":"Joshua Choper","doi":"10.1093/sf/soaf193","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf193","url":null,"abstract":"This study advances sociological theories of motherhood-based workplace inequalities by examining how frontline managers shape mothers’ access to stable work schedules in the US service sector. Prior research has shown that mothers in the US service sector experience intense conflict between the time demands of motherhood and employers’ expectations that employees will be available to work unstable work schedules, yet little work has investigated sources of variation in mothers’ exposure to schedule instability. Building on and synthesizing theories of homophily, expectation states theory, and “queen bee” theories of women in management, I propose a model in which managers’ own gender and parenthood status structure their responses to their employees’ scheduling needs. Female managers who are mothers are theorized to exhibit homophily and produce motherhood scheduling advantages, while female managers without children are expected to penalize mothers. Analyses of survey and experimental data collected from a large national sample of US retail and food service workers support this theoretical synthesis, showing that motherhood advantages in scheduling appear under male managers and female managers who are mothers, but erode under female managers without children. By positioning motherhood—not gender alone—as the status dimension that most directly collides with ideal worker norms, this work highlights an important determinant of when women in management act as agents of change and when they reinforce inequality. More broadly, this study frames managerial discretion as a key mechanism linking status expectations, manager-employee relations, and organizational outcomes, advancing theory on the micro-foundations of workplace inequality.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145553560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The notion that everyone deserves education and that governments need to strive for this ideal has been legitimized and expanded worldwide over the past few decades, as a central part of the successful establishment of a liberal world order. However, the recent resurgence of global illiberalism poses a threat to liberal ideas of equity and diversity, potentially impeding progress toward a more inclusive education system. Against this backdrop, I investigate the extent to which countries around the world introduced policies to incorporate historically disadvantaged populations into education between 1960 and 2019 and what sociocultural factors are associated with the adoption of education policies for the marginalized. Using event count analyses and a novel longitudinal dataset on global education reforms, I show that countries are more likely to adopt education policies for the marginalized when liberalism is globally prevalent, while they are less likely to do so when illiberalism is globally prominent. I also find that countries’ linkages to international liberal or illiberal institutions, including through organized transnational networks, as well as domestic sociopolitical environments, relate to the adoption of education policies for the marginalized. These results help illuminate how countries exist in a world filled with opposing cultural models and through which mechanisms their approaches to educational equity are shaped by such global forces. While focused on education for the marginalized, these findings offer insights into understanding inequality in a changing world context of growing illiberalism.
{"title":"Institutional contestations and educational equity: incorporation of the marginalized in National Education Policies Worldwide, 1960–2019","authors":"Jieun Song","doi":"10.1093/sf/soaf192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf192","url":null,"abstract":"The notion that everyone deserves education and that governments need to strive for this ideal has been legitimized and expanded worldwide over the past few decades, as a central part of the successful establishment of a liberal world order. However, the recent resurgence of global illiberalism poses a threat to liberal ideas of equity and diversity, potentially impeding progress toward a more inclusive education system. Against this backdrop, I investigate the extent to which countries around the world introduced policies to incorporate historically disadvantaged populations into education between 1960 and 2019 and what sociocultural factors are associated with the adoption of education policies for the marginalized. Using event count analyses and a novel longitudinal dataset on global education reforms, I show that countries are more likely to adopt education policies for the marginalized when liberalism is globally prevalent, while they are less likely to do so when illiberalism is globally prominent. I also find that countries’ linkages to international liberal or illiberal institutions, including through organized transnational networks, as well as domestic sociopolitical environments, relate to the adoption of education policies for the marginalized. These results help illuminate how countries exist in a world filled with opposing cultural models and through which mechanisms their approaches to educational equity are shaped by such global forces. While focused on education for the marginalized, these findings offer insights into understanding inequality in a changing world context of growing illiberalism.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145553561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Manuel T Valdés, Fabrizio Bernardi, Ilaria Lievore
Extensive research has examined the effect of educational expansion in one cohort on educational inequality and occupational returns in that same cohort. This study makes a novel contribution by exploring whether the expansion of university education among parents affects their children’s academic achievement. We argue that this expansion reduces the selectivity of university attainment, making graduates progressively less selected on traits relevant to their children’s achievement. Additionally, expansion likely diminishes occupational returns on a university degree, increasing the proportion of overqualified university-graduated parents. Consequently, the average achievement of children from university-educated families should diminish with this expansion among parents. Using data from 30 countries across seven waves of the Program for International Student Assessment, we show that students from university-educated families experience a notable decline in achievement as the proportion of university-educated parents increases. Importantly, the growing over-qualification of university-educated parents and the diminishing objectified cultural capital of university-educated families mediate this negative effect. Furthermore, we also observe a negative association between educational expansion among parents and children’s achievement in non-university-educated families, but less pronounced, resulting in a negative (albeit modest) association between expansion among parents and inequality among children.
广泛的研究考察了一个群体的教育扩张对同一群体的教育不平等和职业回报的影响。本研究探讨了大学教育在父母间的扩张是否会影响子女的学业成就，这是一项新颖的研究贡献。我们认为，这种扩张降低了大学成就的选择性，使毕业生在与子女成就相关的特质上的选择越来越少。此外，人口扩张可能会降低大学学历的职业回报，从而增加了学历过高的大学毕业生父母的比例。因此，受过大学教育家庭的孩子的平均成绩应该随着父母人数的增加而下降。我们利用国际学生评估项目（Program for International Student Assessment）七波中30个国家的数据表明，随着受过大学教育的父母比例的增加，受过大学教育的家庭的学生成绩显著下降。重要的是，受过大学教育的父母的学历过高和受过大学教育的家庭的物化文化资本的减少调解了这种负面影响。此外，我们还观察到，在非大学教育家庭中，父母的教育扩张与孩子的成就之间存在负相关，但不太明显，导致父母的教育扩张与孩子之间的不平等之间存在负相关（尽管适度）。
{"title":"Do university-educated families lose their edge as education expands? The withering performance and advantage of their children","authors":"Manuel T Valdés, Fabrizio Bernardi, Ilaria Lievore","doi":"10.1093/sf/soaf189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf189","url":null,"abstract":"Extensive research has examined the effect of educational expansion in one cohort on educational inequality and occupational returns in that same cohort. This study makes a novel contribution by exploring whether the expansion of university education among parents affects their children’s academic achievement. We argue that this expansion reduces the selectivity of university attainment, making graduates progressively less selected on traits relevant to their children’s achievement. Additionally, expansion likely diminishes occupational returns on a university degree, increasing the proportion of overqualified university-graduated parents. Consequently, the average achievement of children from university-educated families should diminish with this expansion among parents. Using data from 30 countries across seven waves of the Program for International Student Assessment, we show that students from university-educated families experience a notable decline in achievement as the proportion of university-educated parents increases. Importantly, the growing over-qualification of university-educated parents and the diminishing objectified cultural capital of university-educated families mediate this negative effect. Furthermore, we also observe a negative association between educational expansion among parents and children’s achievement in non-university-educated families, but less pronounced, resulting in a negative (albeit modest) association between expansion among parents and inequality among children.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145515838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Courtney E Boen, Nick Graetz, Atheendar Venkataramani, Robin Ortiz
Over the past three decades in the United States, a surge of federal, state, and local laws and policies has increased levels of immigration enforcement and eroded immigrant access to public services and benefits. While a large body of research documents the deleterious effects of these forms of legal violence for a range of immigrant outcomes like poverty, employment, and schooling, the health consequences of these sociopolitical shifts for aging adults remain to be better understood. Linking panel data from the Health and Retirement Study (2004–2016) (n = 18,259) to longitudinal data on county immigration enforcement and state immigrant policies, we estimate three-way fixed-effects models to examine how changes in immigration enforcement and policy shape physical and physiological health at the intersection of race-ethnicity and immigration status. Results show that as local immigration enforcement intensifies and state policy contexts become more hostile toward immigrants, foreign-born adults—especially Latinx immigrants—experience accelerated health decline. Like episodes of physical violence that can leave lacerations and damage—both visible and more concealed—our results provide evidence of the health harms of state-sanctioned violence: what we call bodily scars of legal violence. Taken together, this research shows how policies governing the surveillance and control of immigrants not only shape structures of racial domination and immigrant exclusion but the embodied health inequities that flow from them, with implications for understanding and redressing inequities in health and aging.
{"title":"The bodily scars of legal violence: local immigration enforcement, state immigrant policy, and health inequality","authors":"Courtney E Boen, Nick Graetz, Atheendar Venkataramani, Robin Ortiz","doi":"10.1093/sf/soaf181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf181","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past three decades in the United States, a surge of federal, state, and local laws and policies has increased levels of immigration enforcement and eroded immigrant access to public services and benefits. While a large body of research documents the deleterious effects of these forms of legal violence for a range of immigrant outcomes like poverty, employment, and schooling, the health consequences of these sociopolitical shifts for aging adults remain to be better understood. Linking panel data from the Health and Retirement Study (2004–2016) (n = 18,259) to longitudinal data on county immigration enforcement and state immigrant policies, we estimate three-way fixed-effects models to examine how changes in immigration enforcement and policy shape physical and physiological health at the intersection of race-ethnicity and immigration status. Results show that as local immigration enforcement intensifies and state policy contexts become more hostile toward immigrants, foreign-born adults—especially Latinx immigrants—experience accelerated health decline. Like episodes of physical violence that can leave lacerations and damage—both visible and more concealed—our results provide evidence of the health harms of state-sanctioned violence: what we call bodily scars of legal violence. Taken together, this research shows how policies governing the surveillance and control of immigrants not only shape structures of racial domination and immigrant exclusion but the embodied health inequities that flow from them, with implications for understanding and redressing inequities in health and aging.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"377 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145472910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study posits to an intricate interrelation between changes in occupational gender segregation (OGS) and the rise in computer use in the workplace in the United States. I posit that two contrasting mechanisms underpin this relation. Firstly, computerization has contributed to a more balanced gender distribution in certain professions, previously dominated by men, due to a decrease in physical tasks in occupations, thereby reducing OGS. Conversely, in other occupations, heightened computer use has increased Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) knowledge requirements, thus restricting women’s integration and reproducing OGS. My empirical analysis, utilizing fixed-effects regression models, lagged models, ordinary least squares (OLS) models, and mediation analysis on a comprehensive dataset of the United States Census, American Community Survey, and Occupational Information Network data, confirms a significant association between computer use and OGS. The physical attributes of occupations and their required STEM knowledge components emerge as critical factors. These contradictory mechanisms—one involving reduced physical demands and the other increased required STEM knowledge—ultimately maintain a stable OGS level.
{"title":"Occupational gender segregation: what can we learn from computer use trends?","authors":"Efrat Herzberg-Druker","doi":"10.1093/sf/soaf180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf180","url":null,"abstract":"This study posits to an intricate interrelation between changes in occupational gender segregation (OGS) and the rise in computer use in the workplace in the United States. I posit that two contrasting mechanisms underpin this relation. Firstly, computerization has contributed to a more balanced gender distribution in certain professions, previously dominated by men, due to a decrease in physical tasks in occupations, thereby reducing OGS. Conversely, in other occupations, heightened computer use has increased Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) knowledge requirements, thus restricting women’s integration and reproducing OGS. My empirical analysis, utilizing fixed-effects regression models, lagged models, ordinary least squares (OLS) models, and mediation analysis on a comprehensive dataset of the United States Census, American Community Survey, and Occupational Information Network data, confirms a significant association between computer use and OGS. The physical attributes of occupations and their required STEM knowledge components emerge as critical factors. These contradictory mechanisms—one involving reduced physical demands and the other increased required STEM knowledge—ultimately maintain a stable OGS level.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"111 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145478354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：