Originally published 08/06/2014
Review of Gavin Wright’s “Sharing the Prize: The Economics of the Civil Rights Revolution in the American South”
That southern businesses had to be coerced by the federal government to open their doors to blacks — which proved to be an economic boon — suggests that government economic intervention can succeed, contrary to libertarian claims.
Originally published 06/27/2013
Gavin Wright is the William Robertson Coe professor of American economic history at Stanford University. He is the author of “Sharing the Prize: The Economics of the Civil Rights Revolution in the American South.”The Supreme Court’s rejection yesterday of a central element of the 1965 Voting Rights Act took aim at a measure that not only broke down barriers to political participation in the South but also made significant contributions to the economic wellbeing of black southerners and to the region as a whole.Some of the economic benefits were apparent almost immediately after enactment. Surveys reported more paved roads and streetlights in black residential areas, better access to city and county services, and increased black hiring in public-sector jobs, including police and fire departments.
- Historians Question Trump’s Comments on Confederate Monuments
- Baltimore Removes Confederate Statues in Overnight Operation
- How the Nazi Flags in Charlottesville Look to a German
- Hollywood Forever Cemetery to remove Confederate monument after calls from activists and vandalism threats
- Protesters pull down Confederate statue in North Carolina
- N. D. B. Connolly says Charlottesville showed that liberalism can’t defeat white supremacy
- Historian William I. Hitchcock schools policymakers: Ike never threatened to use nukes in North Korea
- Ibram X. Kendi asks and answers this question: What would Jefferson say about white supremacists descending upon his university?
- Yale’s Beverly Gage slams Columbia’s Mark Lilla’s polemic in the New York Times Book Review
- NYT’s review of Nancy MacLean’s book, “Democracy in Chains,” ignores the debate about her use of evidence