Cited by 843Intergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesIncome, Poverty, and InequalityLabor market dynamics and wage inequality

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 42 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: an Intergenerational Perspective*

Open access
Chetty, Raj, Hendren, Nathaniel, Jones, Maggie R, Porter, Sonya R·2020·The Quarterly Journal of Economics

Abstract

We study the sources of racial disparities in income using anonymized longitudinal data covering nearly the entire U.S. population from 1989 to 2015. We document three results. First, black Americans and American Indians have much lower rates of upward mobility and higher rates of downward mobility than whites, leading to persistent disparities across generations. Conditional on parent income, the black-white income gap is driven by differences in wages and employment rates between black and white men; there are no such differences between black and white women. Hispanic Americans have rates of intergenerational mobility more similar to whites than blacks, leading the Hispanic-white income gap to shrink across generations. Second, differences in parental marital status, education, and wealth explain little of the black-white income gap conditional on parent income. Third, the black-white gap persists even among boys who grow up in the same neighborhood. Controlling for parental income, black boys have lower incomes in adulthood than white boys in 99% of Census tracts. The few areas with small black-white gaps tend to be low-poverty neighborhoods with low levels of racial bias among whites and high rates of father presence among blacks. Black males who move to such neighborhoods earlier in childhood have significantly better outcomes. However, less than 5% of black children grow up in such areas. Our findings suggest that reducing the black-white income gap will require efforts whose impacts cross neighborhood and class lines and increase upward mobility specifically for black men.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using linked Census and tax data covering nearly the entire U.S. population, the paper shows that black and American Indian children have substantially lower intergenerational mobility than white children, while Hispanic children are more similar to whites. The black-white income gap is driven mainly by black men’s lower wages, employment, and related outcomes, persists within neighborhoods, and is not explained by parental marital status, education, or wealth.

Key findings

  • Black and American Indian children have rank-rank mobility curves shifted down by about 13 percentiles relative to whites across the parental income distribution; the predicted steady-state black-white household income gap is 19.2 percentiles, close to the observed 20.9-percentile gap.
  • The black-white gap in individual income is about 10–11 percentiles for men but roughly 1 percentile higher for black women than white women conditional on parent income; black men have wages about 7 percentiles lower, work about 9 fewer hours per week, and at p=25 are 18.9 percentage points less likely to work than white men.
  • Family-level controls explain little: controlling for parental marital status reduces the male intergenerational gap from 10 to 9.3 percentiles, adding education reduces it to 9.1, and wealth proxies reduce it to 8.4; adjusting for total wealth implies 8.0 at p=25.
  • Black-white gaps persist within neighborhoods: black boys have lower adult incomes than white boys in 99% of Census tracts, and the gap remains 7.7 percentiles with tract fixed effects and 7.0 with block fixed effects; less than 5% of black children grow up in low-poverty tracts with high black father presence, versus 63% of white children in comparable white-father-presence areas.

Methods

  • The analysis links deidentified 2000 and 2010 Census short forms to federal income tax returns from 1989, 1994, 1995, and 1998–2015, plus 2005–2015 ACS data, using Protected Identification Keys.
  • The primary sample is children in the 1978–1983 birth cohorts, about 20 million children or 94% of the target frame; child income is mean household or individual income in 2014–2015, and parent income is mean household income from 1994–1995 and 1998–2000.
  • The paper estimates race-specific rank-rank intergenerational mobility, uses fixed effects for commuting zones, Census tracts, and blocks, and applies a timing-of-move design to study childhood exposure effects.

Limitations

  • The paper states that steady-state predictions assume race-specific mobility rates remain constant and should be interpreted as benchmarks, not actual forecasts; it also states that father-presence and racial-bias results are correlational and do not establish causal effects.
  • The paper notes that wealth is measured only through proxies, that IAT participation is voluntary and may be selected, and that unauthorized immigrants are excluded from the sample.
  • Evident from the text: the black-white analysis is prioritized because sample sizes for American Indians are much smaller, and the neighborhood analyses rely on observational variation except where the mover design is used.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/qje/qjz042

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

135 Own result · 86 Own interpretation · 23 No basis given · 14 No full text of the sources · 13 Sources not found · 6 Own method · 3 Not checked yet · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 199 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 75
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
84 of 84
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Each family consists of a single individual in each generation.

    “For simplicity, assume that each family, indexed by i, consists of a single individual in each generation t.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The idiosyncratic shock ε i,t is independent across generations and has expectation zero.

    “where ε i, t denotes an idiosyncratic shock that is independent across generations and has expectation E[ε i,t ] = 0.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    α r and β r do not vary across generations.

    “We assume that α r and β r do not vary across generations.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Intergenerational mobility for each race is constant over time.

    “Our model's steady-state predictions assume that intergenerational mobility for each race is constant over time.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Rates of intergenerational mobility remain constant across generations.

    “Under the assumption that rates of mobility remain constant across generations, we can predict how the black-white disparity will evolve across generations using the model in Section II.”
    “As noted in Section II, these steady-state predictions assume that mobility rates do not change across generations.”
    “assuming constant mobility across generations”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The assumptions of the model in Section II hold.

    “For example, under the assumptions of the model in Section II, if black children's mean ranks were increased by 13 percentiles at all levels of parental income, the unconditional black-white income gap would fall to just 2.7 percentiles within two generations.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The potential outcomes of children who move to better versus worse areas do not vary with the age at which they move.

    “We can interpret differences in the coefficients b m , for example, b mb m + 1 , as the causal effect of exposure to a better area (i.e., an area with higher observed incomes) under the assumption that the potential outcomes of children who move to better versus worse areas do not vary with the age at which they move.”
7 of 7

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 71 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Duncan, 1968, “Inheritance of Poverty or Inheritance of Race?,”, On Understanding Poverty: Perspectives from the Social Sciences, 85
  2. Hertz, 2005, “Rags, Riches, and Race: The Intergenerational Economic Mobility of Black and White Families in the United States,”, 165
  3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2003, “Chapter 5, Sample Design and Estimation; 2000 Census of Population and Housing: Public-use Microdata Samples Technical Documentation,”
  4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2014, “American Community Survey Design and Methodology (January 2014); Chapter 4: Sample Design and Selection,”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 843

Metadata

Authors
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • United States Census Bureau (US)
Venue
The Quarterly Journal of Economics
Published
2019-12-26
Volume
135
Issue
2
Pages
711-783
ISSN
  • 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4650
OpenAlex
W3123816425
Cited by
842
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 101 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 150 · 2023: 129 · 2022: 135 · 2021: 116 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 21
FWCI
163.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Quarterly Journal of Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
Keywords
intergenerational mobility, black-white income gap, Native Americans, upward mobility, downward mobility, neighborhood effects, racial bias, father presence, parental income, Black men, economic opportunities

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-04, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-04 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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