Models of inequity

Sharpening the fuzzy process of bias, discrimination and inequity

August 13, 2017 — January 19, 2023


Assumed audience:

People with an interest in evidence-backed interventions to improve equity, in the west generally, especially technical workplaces

Scrapbook to collect various models of how inequity on various axes arises and is maintained. Having models for this is a good idea; otherwise we need to try to guess what we can change, what we cannot, and what the tradeoffs are, using only feelings. Yet our feelings need help.

Figure 1

1 Game-theoretical models

Cailin O’Connor’s The Origins of Unfairness: Social Categories and Cultural Evolution (O’Connor 2019).

Hilbe’s inequality model (Hauser, Hilbe, et al. 2019) is another (?) game theoretic model of the difficulties of coordinating in an unequal society.

Possibly related: collective action.

2 Cumulative disadvantage

Du, Nordell, and Joseph (2021) is a model of how gendered the promotion pathway is for non-obvious reasons:

The term glass ceiling is applied to the well-established phenomenon in which women and people of color are consistently blocked from reaching the upper-most levels of the corporate hierarchy. Focusing on gender, we present an agent-based model that explores how empirically established mechanisms of interpersonal discrimination coevolve with social norms at both the organizational (meso) and societal (macro) levels to produce this glass ceiling effect for women. Our model extends our understanding of how the glass ceiling arises, and why it can be resistant to change. We do so by synthesizing existing psychological and structural theories of discrimination into a mathematical model that quantifies explicitly how complex organizational systems can produce and maintain inequality. We discuss implications of our findings for both intervention and future empirical analyses, and provide open-source code for those wishing to adapt or extend our work.

Their model auditions various, apparently-individually-minor, points of adverse gender discrimination and finds that the overall result is large divergence between genders. This is a stylised model, but it matches my understanding of the world well.

Why am I mentioning this here? Because I think it characterises an important dynamic that is often under-addressed in workplace equity arguments and seems to be under-addressed in favour of getting sidetracked with other stuff that doesn’t necessarily help so much.

TODO: How to address cumulative disadvantage models best? Quotas, formal sponsorship, etc?

Clifton et al. (2019) promote a minimum viable version of this:

Here, we present a minimal mathematical model that reveals the relative role that bias and homophily (self-seeking) may play in the ascension of women through professional hierarchies. Unlike previous models, our novel model predicts that gender parity is not inevitable, and deliberate intervention may be required to achieve gender balance in several fields. To validate the model, we analyze a new database of gender fractionation over time for 16 professional hierarchies. The decreasing representation of women at increasing levels of power within hierarchical professions has been called the “leaky pipeline” effect, but the main cause of this phenomenon remains contentious. Using a mathematical model of gender dynamics within professional hierarchies and a new database of gender fractionation over time, we quantify the impact of the two major decision-makers in the ascension of people through hierarchies: those applying for promotion and those who grant promotion. The model is the first to demonstrate that intervention may be required to reach gender parity in some fields.

3 Conflict theory

Inequality between groups arises because groups can coordinate to capture more resources for themselves at the expense of another group. See conflict theory.

4 Incoming

5 References

Borondo, Borondo, Rodriguez-Sickert, et al. 2014. To Each According to Its Degree: The Meritocracy and Topocracy of Embedded Markets.” Scientific Reports.
Clauset, Arbesman, and Larremore. 2015. Systematic Inequality and Hierarchy in Faculty Hiring Networks.” Science Advances.
Clifton, Hill, Karamchandani, et al. 2019. Mathematical Model of Gender Bias and Homophily in Professional Hierarchies.” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science.
Coscia, and Vandeweerdt. 2022. Posts on Central Websites Need Less Originality to Be Noticed.” Scientific Reports.
Crystal, Shea, and Reyes. 2017. Cumulative Advantage, Cumulative Disadvantage, and Evolving Patterns of Late-Life Inequality.” The Gerontologist.
Dancy, and Hodari. 2023. How Well-Intentioned White Male Physicists Maintain Ignorance of Inequity and Justify Inaction.” International Journal of STEM Education.
DeDeo, and Hobson. 2021. From Equality to Hierarchy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Du, Nordell, and Joseph. 2021. Insidious Nonetheless: How Small Effects and Hierarchical Norms Create and Maintain Gender Disparities in Organizations.” arXiv:2110.04196 [Cs].
Fehr, and Schmidt. 1999. A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Galos, and Coppock. 2023. Gender Composition Predicts Gender Bias: A Meta-Reanalysis of Hiring Discrimination Audit Experiments.” Science Advances.
Gould. 2002. The Origins of Status Hierarchies: A Formal Theory and Empirical Test.” American Journal of Sociology.
Hauser, Hilbe, Chatterjee, et al. 2019. Social Dilemmas Among Unequals.” Nature.
Hauser, Kraft-Todd, Rand, et al. 2019. Invisible Inequality Leads to Punishing the Poor and Rewarding the Rich.” Behavioural Public Policy.
Hetzer, and Sornette. 2009. Other-Regarding Preferences and Altruistic Punishment: A Darwinian Perspective.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1468517.
Hisano, Sornette, and Mizuno. 2011. Predicted and Verified Deviations from Zipf’s Law in Ecology of Competing Products.” Physical Review E.
Kaldasch. 2012. Evolutionary Model of the Personal Income Distribution.” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications.
Kawakatsu, Chodrow, Eikmeier, et al. 2021. Emergence of Hierarchy in Networked Endorsement Dynamics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Merton. 1968. The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science.
———. 1988. The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property.” Isis.
O’Connor. 2019. The Origins of Unfairness: Social Categories and Cultural Evolution.
———. 2022. “Why Natural Social Contracts Are Not Fair.”
O’Connor, Bright, and Bruner. 2019. The Emergence of Intersectional Disadvantage.” Social Epistemology.
Pratto, Sidanius, and Levin. 2006. Social Dominance Theory and the Dynamics of Intergroup Relations: Taking Stock and Looking Forward.” European Review of Social Psychology.
Ross, Glennon, Murciano-Goroff, et al. 2022. Women Are Credited Less in Science Than Men.” Nature.
Rowe. 1977. “The Saturn’s Rings Phenomenon.” In Conference on Women’s Leadership and Authority in the Health Professions, Santa Cruz, CA.
Salganik, Dodds, and Watts. 2006. Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market.” Science.
Shippee, Rinaldo, and Ferraro. 2012. Mortality Risk Among Black and White Working Women: The Role of Perceived Work Trajectories.” Journal of Aging and Health.
Smith, Natterson-Horowitz, and Alfaro. 2021. The Nature of Privilege: Intergenerational Wealth in Animal Societies.” Behavioral Ecology.
Venkatasubramanian, Scheidegger, Friedler, et al. 2021. Fairness in Networks: Social Capital, Information Access, and Interventions.” In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. KDD ’21.
Whitley, Luttrell, and Schultz. 2022. The Measurement of Racial Colorblindness.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Willson, Shuey, and Elder. 2007. Cumulative Advantage Processes as Mechanisms of Inequality in Life Course Health.” American Journal of Sociology.
Wolpert. 2010. Why Income Comparison Is Rational.” Ecological Economics.
Wooldredge, Frank, Goulette, et al. 2015. Is the Impact of Cumulative Disadvantage on Sentencing Greater for Black Defendants? Criminology & Public Policy.