The Unequal Distribution of Opportunity: A National Audit Study of Bureaucratic Discrimination in Primary School Access
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
The Unequal Distribution of Opportunity : A National Audit Study of Bureaucratic Discrimination in Primary School Access. / Olsen, Asmus Leth; Kyhse-Andersen, Jonas Hogh; Moynihan, Donald.
In: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2022, p. 587-603.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - The Unequal Distribution of Opportunity
T2 - A National Audit Study of Bureaucratic Discrimination in Primary School Access
AU - Olsen, Asmus Leth
AU - Kyhse-Andersen, Jonas Hogh
AU - Moynihan, Donald
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Administrators can use their discretion to discriminate in the provision of public services via two mechanisms. They make decisions to allocate public services, allowing them to discriminate via allocative exclusion. They can also discriminate by targeting administrative burdens toward outgroups to make bureaucratic processes more onerous. While prior audit studies only examine the use of administrative burdens, we offer evidence of both mechanisms. We sent a request to all Danish primary schools (N = 1,698) from an ingroup (a typical Danish name) and outgroup (a Muslim name) father asking if it was possible to move his child to the school. While both groups received similar response rates, we find large differences in discrimination via allocative exclusion: Danes received a clear acceptance 25% of the time, compared to 15% for Muslims. Muslims also faced greater administrative burdens in the form of additional questions.
AB - Administrators can use their discretion to discriminate in the provision of public services via two mechanisms. They make decisions to allocate public services, allowing them to discriminate via allocative exclusion. They can also discriminate by targeting administrative burdens toward outgroups to make bureaucratic processes more onerous. While prior audit studies only examine the use of administrative burdens, we offer evidence of both mechanisms. We sent a request to all Danish primary schools (N = 1,698) from an ingroup (a typical Danish name) and outgroup (a Muslim name) father asking if it was possible to move his child to the school. While both groups received similar response rates, we find large differences in discrimination via allocative exclusion: Danes received a clear acceptance 25% of the time, compared to 15% for Muslims. Muslims also faced greater administrative burdens in the form of additional questions.
KW - FIELD EXPERIMENT
KW - ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION
KW - CORRESPONDENCE TESTS
KW - METAANALYSIS
KW - DIVERSITY
KW - ATTITUDES
KW - LAKISHA
KW - GENDER
U2 - 10.1111/ajps.12584
DO - 10.1111/ajps.12584
M3 - Journal article
VL - 66
SP - 587
EP - 603
JO - American Journal of Political Science
JF - American Journal of Political Science
SN - 0092-5853
IS - 3
ER -
ID: 271608102