What Is Affirmative Action?

The term affirmative action refers to a policy aimed at increasing workplace and educational opportunities for people who are underrepresented in various areas of our society.

Affirmative action focuses on demographics with historically low representation in leadership, professional, and academic roles. It is often considered a means of countering discrimination against particular groups.

Affirmative action programs are commonly implemented by businesses and governments by taking individuals’ race, sex, religion, or national origin into account when hiring.

How Affirmative Action Works

The main purpose of affirmative action is to diversify various parts of society. It is a government-backed policy that was developed to provide inadequately represented groups of people with access to opportunities in academia, the private workforce, and government jobs.

These opportunities include admission to schools and jobs in professional positions, as well as access to housing and financing.

History and Implementation

The affirmative action policy rose to prominence in the United States in the 1960s as a way to promote equal opportunity for various segments of society. The policy was developed to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which sought to eliminate discrimination.

Early implementations of affirmative action largely focused on halting the continued social segregation of minorities and other disadvantaged individuals from institutions and opportunities.

Despite legislation that outlawed discrimination practices in the U.S., tangible change in the status quo was not immediate.

In more recent years, campaigns have expanded to make organizations and institutions even more inclusive by pushing for greater gender diversity. Newer policies are also aimed at providing more access to opportunities for covered veterans and people with disabilities.

Elements of Affirmative Action

Efforts to stimulate change can take the form of financial assistance such as grants, scholarships, and other support earmarked to help with access to higher education opportunities.

In addition, hiring practices may be structured to require the inclusion of diverse candidates for consideration for job openings. Government agencies may mandate that companies and institutions populate their ranks with a minimum percentage of qualified professionals from varying ethnicities, genders, and cultures.

Failure to meet such requirements could disqualify institutions from receiving government funding or being able to compete for public contracts.

Examples of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action has been put to work since the 1960s, despite lack of progress at times and rulings by legal authorities such as the Supreme Court that have hindered it. Here are some examples of the policy in action.

• In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246. It required that all government contractors and subcontractors expand job opportunities for minorities. It also established the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) to enforce the order.
• In 1970, the Labor Department ordered and authorized flexible goals and timetables to address the underutilization of minorities by federal contractors. In 1971, women were included in the order.
• In 1973, President Richard M. Nixon signed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It required agencies to submit an affirmative action plan to the EEOC that detailed the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities.
• In 1983, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12432. It required every federal agency with substantial procurement or grant-making authority to develop a Minority Business Enterprise development plan.
• In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. A year later, he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
• In 1998, the U. S. House of Representatives and the U. S. Senate stopped attempts to eliminate specific affirmative action programs. Both houses of Congress prohibited the abolishment of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. In addition, the House refused to allow the elimination of affirmative action in admissions in higher education programs funded through the Higher Education Act.
• In 2022, the Wall Street Journal reported that dozens of major U.S. companies including Apple, Alphabet, American Airlines, and General Motors were urging the Supreme Court to uphold the continued use affirmative action policies in college admissions. They asserted that greater diversity on college campuses contributed to ongoing innovation in commerce and successful business endeavors.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Affirmative Action

The implementation and continued use of affirmative action policies have drawn strong support as well as staunch criticism.

Advantages

An obvious benefit of affirmative action is the opportunities they provide to people who otherwise might not have them. These opportunities include access to education for students who may be disadvantaged and career advancement for employees who may be blocked from rising up the corporate ladder.

Proponents of affirmative action say that the effort must continue because of the low percentages of diversity in positions of authority and in the media, as well as limited acknowledgment of the achievements of marginalized or unrepresented groups.

Disadvantages

Opponents of affirmative action frequently call these efforts a collective failure. They cite as evidence the tiny changes to the status quo after decades of effort. The cost of such programs, coupled with a belief that affirmative action forces the populace to make unwarranted accommodations, drives a significant part of the opposition.

Certain individuals believe that there is little to no bias in society. They argue that affirmative action results in reverse discrimination, which can often lead to qualified candidates being overlooked in academics and the workplace in favor of less qualified candidates who meet policy standards.

Affirmative Action Statistics

Affirmative action is a very controversial topic and often leads to heated debates between those who support it and people who feel it doesn’t benefit society. Is there a way to quantify how people feel and how it’s working?

According to a Gallup poll, more than half of Americans (61%) believe in affirmative action policies. This level of support has increased since the last poll, where only 47% to 50% of individuals thought affirmative action was necessary. This increase in support is especially important, given the active issues surrounding race and identity in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Many Americans feel positive about diversity. They are comfortable with the makeup of their communities, saying diversity positively impacts society as a whole.

There is some divide when it comes to identifying race and ethnicity for purposes of hiring. In fact, about 74% of individuals feel that a candidate’s racial or ethnic background shouldn’t be considered when hiring or promoting them. These activities should only be based on someone’s merit and qualifications.

What Is Adverse Selection?

Adverse selection refers generally to a situation in which sellers have information that buyers do not have, or vice versa, about some aspect of product quality. In other words, it is a case where asymmetric information is exploited. Asymmetric information, also called information failure, happens when one party to a transaction has greater material knowledge than the other party.

Typically, the more knowledgeable party is the seller. Symmetric information is when both parties have equal knowledge.

In the case of insurance, adverse selection is the tendency of those in dangerous jobs or high-risk lifestyles to purchase products like life insurance. In these cases, it is the buyer who actually has more knowledge (i.e., about their health). To fight adverse selection, insurance companies reduce exposure to large claims by limiting coverage or raising premiums.

Understanding Adverse Selection

Adverse selection occurs when one party in a negotiation has relevant information the other party lacks. The asymmetry of information often leads to making bad decisions, such as doing more business with less profitable or riskier market segments.

In the case of insurance, avoiding adverse selection requires identifying groups of people more at risk than the general population and charging them more money. For example, life insurance companies go through underwriting when evaluating whether to give an applicant a policy and what premium to charge.

Underwriters typically evaluate an applicant’s height, weight, current health, medical history, family history, occupation, hobbies, driving record, and lifestyle risks such as smoking; all these issues impact an applicant’s health and the company’s potential for paying a claim. The insurance company then determines whether to give the applicant a policy and what premium to charge for taking on that risk.

Consequences of Adverse Selection

A seller may have better information than a buyer about products and services being offered, putting the buyer at a disadvantage in the transaction. For example, a company’s managers may more willingly issue shares when they know the share price is overvalued compared to the real value; buyers can end up buying overvalued shares and lose money. In the secondhand car market, a seller may know about a vehicle’s defect and charge the buyer more without disclosing the issue.

The general consequence of adverse selection is that it increases costs since consumers lack information held by sellers or producers, creating an asymmetry in the market. This can also lower consumption as buyers may be wary of the quality of the products that are offered for sale. Or, it may exclude certain consumers that do not have access to or cannot afford to obtain information that could lead them to make better buying decisions.

One indirect effect of this is a negative impact on consumers’ health and well-being. If you buy a faulty product or dangerous medication because you don’t have good information, consuming these products can cause physical harm. Or, by refraining from buying certain healthcare products (e.g., vaccines), consumers may wrongly judge a safe intervention as overly risky.

Adverse Selection in Insurance

Because of adverse selection, insurers find that high-risk people are more willing to take out and pay greater premiums for policies. If the company charges an average price but only high-risk consumers buy, the company takes a financial loss by paying out more benefits or claims.

However, by increasing premiums for high-risk policyholders, the company has more money with which to pay those benefits. For example, a life insurance company charges higher premiums for race car drivers. A car insurance company charges more for customers living in high-crime areas. A health insurance company charges higher premiums for customers who smoke. In contrast, customers who do not engage in risky behaviors are less likely to pay for insurance due to increasing policy costs.

A prime example of adverse selection in regard to life or health insurance coverage is a smoker who successfully manages to obtain insurance coverage as a nonsmoker. Smoking is a key identified risk factor for life insurance or health insurance, so a smoker must pay higher premiums to obtain the same coverage level as a nonsmoker. By concealing their behavioral choice to smoke, an applicant is leading the insurance company to make decisions on coverage or premium costs that are adverse to the insurance company’s management of financial risk.

Another example of adverse selection in the case of auto insurance would be a situation where the applicant obtains insurance coverage based on providing a residence address in an area with a very low crime rate when the applicant actually lives in an area with a very high crime rate. Obviously, the risk of the applicant’s vehicle being stolen, vandalized, or otherwise damaged when regularly parked in a high-crime area is substantially greater than if the vehicle was regularly parked in a low-crime area.

How to Minimize Adverse Selection

Adverse selection by increasing access to information, thus minimizing asymmetries. For consumers, the internet has greatly increased access while reducing costs. Crowdsourced information in the form of user reviews along with more formal reviews by bloggers or specialist websites are often free and warn potential buyers about otherwise obscure issues around quality.

Warranties and guarantees offered by sellers can also help, allowing consumers to use a product risk-free for a certain period to see if it has flaws or quality issues and the ability to return them without consequence if there are issues. Laws and regulations can also help, such as Lemon Laws in the used car industry. Federal regulatory authorities such as the FDA also help ensure that products are safe and effective for consumers.

Insurers reduce adverse selection by requesting medical information from applicants in the form of requiring paramedical examinations, querying doctors’ offices for medical records, and looking at one’s family history. This gives the insurance company more information that an applicant may fail to disclose on their own.

Moral Hazard vs. Adverse Selection

Like adverse selection, moral hazard occurs when there is asymmetric information between two parties, but where a change in the behavior of one party is exposed after a deal is struck. Adverse selection occurs when there’s a lack of symmetric information prior to a deal between a buyer and a seller.

Moral hazard is the risk that one party has not entered into the contract in good faith or has provided false details about its assets, liabilities, or credit capacity. For instance, in the investment banking sector, it may become known that government regulatory bodies will bail out failing banks; as a result, bank employees may take on excessive amounts of risk to score lucrative bonuses knowing that if their risky bets do not pan out, the bank will be saved anyhow.

The Lemons Problem

The lemons problem refers to issues that arise regarding the value of an investment or product due to asymmetric information possessed by the buyer and the seller.

The lemons problem was put forward in a research paper, “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism,” written in the late 1960s by George A. Akerlof, an economist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The tag phrase identifying the problem came from the example of used cars Akerlof used to illustrate the concept of asymmetric information, as defective used cars are commonly referred to as lemons. The takeaway is that due to adverse selection, the only used cars left on the market will ultimately be lemons.

The lemons problem exists in the marketplace for both consumer and business products, and also in the arena of investing, related to the disparity in the perceived value of an investment between buyers and sellers. The lemons problem is also prevalent in financial sector areas, including insurance and credit markets. For example, in the realm of corporate finance, a lender has asymmetrical and less-than-ideal information regarding the actual creditworthiness of a borrower.

The Bottom Line

Contrary to assumptions made by mainstream economic and financial models, information is not symmetrically accessible and available to all actors in a market. In particular, sellers and producers often have far more information about what they are selling than do buyers. This information asymmetry can lead to market inefficiencies via what is known as adverse selection. In insurance markets, applicants have more information about themselves than do insurers, meaning that they withhold key information about being higher-risk.

Who Is Alan Greenspan?

Alan Greenspan is an American economist who was the chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Fed), the United States’ central bank, from 1987 until 2006. In that role, he also served as the chair of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which is the Fed’s principal monetary policymaking committee that makes decisions on interest rates and managing the U.S. money supply.

Greenspan is best known for largely presiding over the Great Moderation, a period of relatively stable inflation and macroeconomic growth, that lasted from the mid-1980s to the financial crisis in 2007.

Early Life and Education

Alan Greenspan was born in New York City on March 6, 1926. He received his bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in economics, all from New York University, as well as studying economics at Columbia University in the early 1950s under Arthur Burns, who would later serve two consecutive terms as chair of the Board of Governors of the Fed.

Greenspan’s first job, in 1948, was not in government but for a non-profit analyzing demand for steel, aluminum, and copper. After this, Greenspan ran an economic consulting firm in New York City, Townsend-Greenspan & Co., Inc., from 1954 to 1974 and 1977 to 1987. Greenspan began his career in the public sector in 1974 when he served as chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) under President Gerald Ford.

In 1987, Greenspan became the 13th chair of the Fed, replacing Paul Volcker. President Ronald Reagan was the first to appoint Greenspan to the office, but three other presidents, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, named him to four additional terms. His tenure as chair lasted for more than 18 years before he retired in 2006 to be replaced by Ben Bernanke. After leaving, he published his memoir, The Age of Turbulence, and began his own Washington DC-based consulting firm, Greenspan Associates LLC. 

Alan Greenspan was known as being adept at gaining consensus among Fed board members on policy issues and for serving during one of the most severe economic crises of the late 20th century, the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1987. After that crash, he advocated for sharply slashing interest rates to prevent the economy from sinking into a deep depression.

Alan Greenspan’s Policies and Actions

Greenspan presided over one of the most prosperous periods in American history—thanks in no small part, supporters feel, to his helming of the Fed. Still, some of his policies and actions were controversial, either at the time or in retrospect.

Views on Inflation

Early in his career, Greenspan developed a reputation for being hawkish on inflation, in part due to his advocacy for a return to the gold standard in monetary policy in the 1967 essay “Gold and Economic Freedom.” 

His allegedly “hawkish” stance was portrayed by early critics as a preference for sacrificing economic growth in exchange for preventing inflation. Greenspan eventually reversed those views as Fed chief; in a 1998 speech, he conceded that the new economy might not be as susceptible to inflation as he had first thought.

In practice, Greenspan’s supposedly hawkish approach was flexible, to say the least. He was clearly willing to risk inflation under conditions that could create a severe depression and certainly pursued a generally easy money policy relative to his predecessor, Paul Volcker. In particular, in the early 2000s, Greenspan presided over cutting interest rates to levels not seen in many decades.

Flip-Flop on Interest Rates

In 2000, Greenspan advocated reducing interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst. He did so again in 2001 after 9-11, the World Trade Center attack. Following 9-11, Greenspan led the FOMC to immediately reduce the Fed funds rate from 3.5% to 3%, and, in the following months, he worked toward lowering that rate to a record (at the time) low of 1.13% and holding it there for a full year.

Some criticized those rate cuts as having the potential to inflate asset price bubbles in the U.S. Greenspan’s pro-inflationary policies, particularly during this period, are today generally understood to have contributed to the U.S. housing bubble, subsequent subprime mortgage financial crisis, and the Great Recession, though this is of course disputed by Greenspan and his allies.

Encouraging Adjustable-Rate Mortgages

In a 2004 speech, Greenspan suggested more homeowners should consider taking out adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to prevailing market interest rates. Under Greenspan’s tenure, interest rates subsequently rose as inflation accelerated. This increase reset many of those mortgages to much higher payments, creating even more distress for many homeowners and exacerbating the impact of that crisis.

The “Greenspan Put”

The “Greenspan put” was a monetary policy strategy popular during the 1990s and 2000s under Greenspan. Throughout his reign, he attempted to help support the U.S. economy by actively using the federal funds rate to aggressively lower interest rates to fight the deflation of asset price bubbles.

The Greenspan put created a substantial moral hazard in financial markets. Informed investors could expect the Fed to take predictable actions that would bailout investor’s losses, which distort the incentives of market participants. This created an environment where investors were encouraged to take excessive risk because Fed monetary policy tended to inherently limit their potential losses in the event of a market downturn in an analogous way to buying put options on the open market.

The Bottom Line

Like many other government officials, the success of Alan Greenspan’s five terms as Chair of the Fed will depend on who you ask. However, it is certainly true that Greenspan faced some massive challenges during his tenure, such as the 1987 stock market crash and the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Overall, Greenspan helped usher in a strong U.S. economy in the 1990s. Opinion on how much his actions caused the economic recession that began shortly after his term ended varies.