Measures of “Race” and the analysis of racial inequality in Brazil
Abstract
Quantitative analyses of racial disparities typically rely on a single categorical measure to operationalize race. We demonstrate the value of an approach that compares results obtained using various measures of race. Using a national probability sample of the Brazilian population that captured race in six formats, we first show how the racial composition of Brazil can shift from majority white to majority black depending on the classification scheme. In addition, using quantile regression, we find that racial disparities are most severe at the upper end of the income distribution; that racial disparities in earnings are larger when race is defined by interviewers rather than self-identified; and that those classified as "black" suffer a greater wage penalty than those classified as "brown." Our findings extend prior conclusions about racial inequality in Brazil. More generally, our analysis demonstrates that comparison of results across measures represents a neglected source of analytic leverage for advancing empirical knowledge and theoretical understanding of how race, as a multidimensional social construct, contributes to the production of social inequality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These mismatches can significantly impact health statistics, population statistics, and measures of social inequality.
“This in turn can significantly impact health statistics [62, 101], population statistics [8, 74], and measures of social inequality [102].”
From Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 169
- Authors
- Bailey, S. R., Loveman, M., & Muniz, J. O.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- University of Wisconsin System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bailey, Stanley R.
- ORCID
- Loveman, Mara
- Venue
- Social Science Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 106-119
- ISSN
- 0049-089X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2114546857
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 23.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
- Keywords
- racial inequality, racial classification, racial composition, wage penalty, self-identification, income distribution, Brazil, social construction of race
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review