This paper examines several proposed approaches to reducing racial and economic disparity in the United States, evaluating each against three criteria: avoiding increased animosity, encouraging lasting change rather than short-term fixes, and preserving the dignity of those who benefit. The paper considers reparations for African Americans, Arthur Lewis's three models of interracial coexistence, and public housing policy reforms in New York City as analyzed by Freeman and Hamilton. It concludes that targeted housing policy — including anti-discrimination enforcement, the Community Reinvestment Act, and financial literacy programs — offers the most promising path forward, though it acknowledges that no single approach fully resolves persistent racial and economic inequalities.
The paper demonstrates criteria-based comparative analysis: rather than simply describing what each source argues, the writer tests each policy proposal against the same three benchmarks (animosity, durability, and dignity). This technique transforms a literature survey into a structured argument with a defensible conclusion.
The paper opens by defining its evaluative criteria, then moves through three policy approaches in sequence: reparations, interracial governance models (Lewis), and housing policy reform. Each section applies the same three-question test before the conclusion synthesizes findings and acknowledges that racial and economic inequality remains unresolved. The structure mirrors a classic problem–solution–evaluation essay format at the undergraduate level.
For the sake of argument, let us assume it is possible to find a way to decrease the disparity that exists between different races and economic strata. What is the "best" way to reach this goal? "Best" is defined here according to three criteria: (1) finding a way that will not lead to greater animosity between individuals for the sake of making them more equal; (2) finding a way that will encourage further decreases in disparity in the future, rather than merely serving as a bandage on a wound that keeps festering; and (3) finding a way that makes those who benefit from a decision feel neither demeaned nor patronized, but rather better about themselves and their culture.
One possible way of decreasing disparity, as discussed in "Past Due: The African-American Quest for Reparations" by Robert Allen and "The Economics of Reparations" by William Darity Jr. and Dania Frank, is to heed the call for reparations and provide African Americans with compensation for the enslavement of their ancestors. However, would such a mandated reparation payment actually resolve the disparity that exists? Would it reduce animosity between individuals? Would it encourage further decreases in disparity in the future rather than simply covering a deep societal wound? And, lastly, would reparations make people feel proud rather than demeaned or patronized?
In his earlier work Black Awakening in Capitalist America, Robert Allen himself answers these questions by warning that one of the pitfalls of the reparations movement could be the ongoing empowerment and economic advancement of a new black elite at the expense of the masses of working-class and poor people. This risk can be described as "embourgeoisement" — the bourgeoisification of reparations.
Darity and Frank believe that the wealth redistribution achieved through a one-time reparations payment will lead to the desired transformation of African American economic prospects. It is true that a significant reduction in economic inequality may be necessary to create equal opportunity. However, are reparations alone sufficient to further African American economic independence, especially given that large impoverished populations still exist both in this country and worldwide? Returning to the three criteria above, do reparations actually end racism, or do they merely heal it in the short term?
In the chapter "Interracial Goals," Arthur Lewis examines three approaches to helping different races coexist peacefully: the homogeneous state, the raceless state, and the plural society. He analyzes how each has functioned in practice and concludes that the first two are not feasible. The homogeneous state will not work because partition cannot be effected equitably without leaving too many people on the wrong side of the border. The raceless state is similarly unworkable unless both majority and minority parties genuinely wish to live together on such terms.
This leaves the third approach: the plural society. Lewis notes that as a long-run goal it is inferior to the other two alternatives, because it keeps group differences alive and moves away from rather than toward economic equality. It therefore also fails to satisfy the three criteria in any meaningful way. The most that can be said for it is that in the short run "it is a refuge from cleavage and strife" — or "the best that we can do for the time being." That is not, as Lewis himself implies, saying very much.
Of the various approaches examined, it appears that reducing disparity through changes in public policy — particularly in areas of housing and home ownership — holds the most promise. The papers "The Changing Determinants of Interracial Home Ownership Disparities: New York City in the 1990s" and "A Dream Deferred or Realized: The Impact of Public Policy on Fostering Black Homeowners in New York City Throughout the 1990s," both by Lance Freeman and Darrick Hamilton, demonstrate that the prescription for change is not a single action but a combination of several: (1) combating racial discrimination in housing through vigorous enforcement of anti-bias laws; (2) continuing and strengthening policy reforms such as the Community Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; and (3) improving financial literacy and expanding education and information on access to credit.
Unfortunately, that is the conclusion of all these approaches. Regardless of what approach is taken, racial and economic disparities remain. As with any complex problem, one must identify the best available scenario. Policy change in housing appears to be that best case. First, it does not seem to increase animosity between the races. Second, it goes beyond merely applying a bandage to a festering sore — people gain a home of their own, many for the first time. Third, it does not demean or patronize those who benefit. These homeowners take pride in their new housing and the improvements in their lives; they do not believe they are being handed something for nothing.
You’re 79% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.