The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ethnic Divisions and Production in Firms *
Abstract
A body of literature suggests that ethnic heterogeneity limits economic growth. This article provides microeconometric evidence on the direct effect of ethnic divisions on productivity. In team production at a plant in Kenya, an upstream worker supplies and distributes flowers to two downstream workers, who assemble them into bunches. The plant uses an essentially random rotation process to assign workers to positions, leading to three types of teams: (i) ethnically homogeneous teams, and teams in which (ii) one or (iii) both downstream workers belong to a tribe in rivalry with the upstream worker’s tribe. I find strong evidence that upstream workers undersupply non-coethnic downstream workers (vertical discrimination) and shift flowers from non-coethnic to coethnic downstream workers (horizontal discrimination), at the cost of lower own pay and total output. A period of ethnic conflict following Kenya’s 2007 election led to a sharp increase in discrimination. In response, the plant began paying the two downstream workers for their combined output (team pay). This led to a modest output reduction in (i) and (iii) teams—as predicted by standard incentive models—but an increase in output in (ii) teams, and overall. Workers’ behavior before conflict, during conflict, and under team pay is predicted by a model of taste-based discrimination. My findings suggest that interethnic rivalries lower allocative efficiency in the private sector, that the economic costs of ethnic diversity vary with the political environment, and that in high-cost environments firms are forced to adopt “second best” policies to limit discrimination distortions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355302760193904 · Cited by 3,970
POSNER, D. N. (2004) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055404041334 · Cited by 940
Cited by
The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market*
Deming, D. J. (2017) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjx022 · Cited by 1,727
Does Diversity Matter for Health? Experimental Evidence from Oakland
Alsan, M., Garrick, O., & Graziani, G. (2019) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20181446 · Cited by 676
Behavioral development economics
Kremer, M., Rao, G., & Schilbach, F. (2019) · Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations 1 · doi:10.1016/bs.hesbe.2018.12.002 · Cited by 188
Does Diversity Matter for Health? Experimental Evidence from Oakland
Alsan, M., Garrick, O., & Graziani, G. (2018) · doi:10.3386/w24787 · Cited by 160
How Costly are Cultural Biases? Evidence from FinTech
D'Acunto, F., Ghosh, P., & Rossi, A. G. (2022) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4147353 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Hjort, J.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-10-07
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1899-1946
- ISSN
- 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4650
- OpenAlex
- W2259582913
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 46.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ethnic Divisions and Production in Firms *. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/qje/qju028
- The paper
- Hjort, J. (2014). Ethnic Divisions and Production in Firms *. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju028
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.