Douglas S. Massey – författare

During the 1990s, the United States encountered an unprecedented economic upsurge. The duration and scope of this boom led many policymakers in D.C., to believe they had finally found a magic formula for sustained economic growth and seamless national development. Labeled the Washington Consensus, this free-market approach was a shift away from regulation and government intervention toward allowing the markets work themselves out on a global level. Was it magic?

After all, this was an era where the markets for goods, services, capital, and labor burst forth from North America, Western Europe, and Japan to stretch across the globe. The Soviet Union had collapsed and East and Southeast Asian economies were flourishing. Globalization and A New World Order became the slogans of the day.

In what some scholars and policymakers view as a massive social experiment, the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) began leaning on Latin American countries to dismantle their economic regime of import substitution industrialization (ISI). Without a firm understanding of the complexities involved, international lenders pressed for implementation of the Washington Consensus – advocating governments to step out of the way and let the markets do their work.

Yet every nation has a different history when it comes to the process of market creation. The attempt to apply a blanket formula on countries with divergent political, social, and cultural legacies flopped miserably. Supporters of the Washington Consensus discovered their magic formula was merely a myth.

Although Chile, which already had strong institutional foundations, came closest to succeeding in the implementation of the Washington Consensus, places like Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, and Argentina met with political and economical turmoil that shook their countries to the core.

Pulling from a wellspring of knowledge, expertise, and experience from representatives of sociology, economics, demography, anthropology, and urban studies, this special issue of The ANNALS provides a coherent chain of evidence that reveals how the idea for structural adjustment in Latin America arose, how it was applied, the negative consequences it had, and the lessons learned.

Sprung from a request by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation on "Urban Studies and Demography," this collection of thought-provoking articles is the result of a two-year pilot research project conducted by faculty and students affiliated with the Population Studies Center and the Urban Studies program at the University of Pennsylvania.

Students, researchers, and policymakers in public affairs, economics, anthropology, international affairs, sociology, urban studies, population studies, and others will gain clarity and insight into this complex phase of world economic history.

During the 1990s, the United States encountered an unprecedented economic upsurge. The duration and scope of this boom led many policymakers in D.C., to believe they had finally found a magic formula for sustained economic growth and seamless national development. Labeled the Washington Consensus, this free-market approach was a shift away from regulation and government intervention toward allowing the markets work themselves out on a global level. Was it magic?

After all, this was an era where the markets for goods, services, capital, and labor burst forth from North America, Western Europe, and Japan to stretch across the globe. The Soviet Union had collapsed and East and Southeast Asian economies were flourishing. Globalization and A New World Order became the slogans of the day.

In what some scholars and policymakers view as a massive social experiment, the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) began leaning on Latin American countries to dismantle their economic regime of import substitution industrialization (ISI). Without a firm understanding of the complexities involved, international lenders pressed for implementation of the Washington Consensus – advocating governments to step out of the way and let the markets do their work.

Yet every nation has a different history when it comes to the process of market creation. The attempt to apply a blanket formula on countries with divergent political, social, and cultural legacies flopped miserably. Supporters of the Washington Consensus discovered their magic formula was merely a myth.

Although Chile, which already had strong institutional foundations, came closest to succeeding in the implementation of the Washington Consensus, places like Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, and Argentina met with political and economical turmoil that shook their countries to the core.

Pulling from a wellspring of knowledge, expertise, and experience from representatives of sociology, economics, demography, anthropology, and urban studies, this special issue of The ANNALS provides a coherent chain of evidence that reveals how the idea for structural adjustment in Latin America arose, how it was applied, the negative consequences it had, and the lessons learned.

Sprung from a request by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation on "Urban Studies and Demography," this collection of thought-provoking articles is the result of a two-year pilot research project conducted by faculty and students affiliated with the Population Studies Center and the Urban Studies program at the University of Pennsylvania.

Students, researchers, and policymakers in public affairs, economics, anthropology, international affairs, sociology, urban studies, population studies, and others will gain clarity and insight into this complex phase of world economic history.

More than four decades after the publication of the controversial Moynihan Report, social scientists and policy analysts re-examine what the editors call "the most famous piece of social scientific analysis never published."

As assistant secretary in the United States Department of Labor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his report "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action" in 1965 as an internal document within the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. It described alarming trends in black employment, poverty, and education and argued that they were exacerbated by black family instability. While Moynihan called for a jobs program to employ black men and stabilize families, the report was attacked as an attempt to blame blacks rather than the injustices in American society and widely vilified as sexist and racist in liberal circles.

Now more than 40 years later, this issue of The ANNALS reviews this controversial yet "prophetic report" through a new lens, bringing together some of the country's foremost social scientists to consider how its arguments and predictions have fared in subsequent years and how the controversy surrounding it influenced social science in the late 20th century.

The volume also examines current issues, such as the state of the labor market for young black men in the face of continued discrimination, the link between nonmarital childbearing and poverty, the impacts of the radical transformation in the welfare system, the emergence of mass incarceration society and the persistence of racial residential segregation.

As race remains a fundamental cleavage in American society, intellectuals must embrace the systematic study of the sorts of difficult, sensitive, and often explosive issues first addressed in the Moynihan Report. This volume of The ANNALS is a must-read for students, scholars and policymakers who are ready for a more open, honest and civil debate on America's very real social problems today.

More than four decades after the publication of the controversial Moynihan Report, social scientists and policy analysts re-examine what the editors call "the most famous piece of social scientific analysis never published."

As assistant secretary in the United States Department of Labor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his report "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action" in 1965 as an internal document within the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. It described alarming trends in black employment, poverty, and education and argued that they were exacerbated by black family instability. While Moynihan called for a jobs program to employ black men and stabilize families, the report was attacked as an attempt to blame blacks rather than the injustices in American society and widely vilified as sexist and racist in liberal circles.

Now more than 40 years later, this issue of The ANNALS reviews this controversial yet "prophetic report" through a new lens, bringing together some of the country's foremost social scientists to consider how its arguments and predictions have fared in subsequent years and how the controversy surrounding it influenced social science in the late 20th century.

The volume also examines current issues, such as the state of the labor market for young black men in the face of continued discrimination, the link between nonmarital childbearing and poverty, the impacts of the radical transformation in the welfare system, the emergence of mass incarceration society and the persistence of racial residential segregation.

As race remains a fundamental cleavage in American society, intellectuals must embrace the systematic study of the sorts of difficult, sensitive, and often explosive issues first addressed in the Moynihan Report. This volume of The ANNALS is a must-read for students, scholars and policymakers who are ready for a more open, honest and civil debate on America's very real social problems today.

Since Mexico-U.S. migration represents the largest sustained migratory flow between two nations worldwide, much of the theoretical and empirical work on migration has focused on this single case. In the last few decades, however, migration has emerged as a critical issue across all nations in Latin America and the Caribbean, with the region seeing its position changed from a net migrant-receiving region to one that now stands as one of the foremost sending areas of the world.

In this latest volume of the ANNALS, leading migration scholars seek to redress the imbalance offered when only studying a single case with the first systematic assessment of Latin American migration patterns using ongoing research on the Mexican case as a basis for comparison. Each chapter examines specific propositions or findings derived from the Mexican case that have not yet been tested for other Latin American or Caribbean nations. Using a common framework of data, methods, and theories, they offer a new perspective on the causes and consequences of migration in the Western Hemisphere.

The authors examine four fundamental questions: What are the individual determinants and basic processes of movement? How do we identify and understand the larger structural causes that ultimately underlie individual and household decisions to move? What are the consequences of migration for individuals, households, and communities in sending and receiving nations? And what effect do governmental attempts to control the quantity and quality of immigrants have on the actual size and composition of the resulting international flows? Using comparable data from the Mexican Migration Project (MMP) and the Latin American Migration Project (LAMP), the most comprehensive and reliable source of data on immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean, the volume offers valuable insight into 118 Mexican communities and 35 communities from seven other nations of Latin America and the Caribbean, including Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru, Paraguay, Argentina, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, as well as Puerto Rico.

In this volume, comparative research is shown to be critical to building an accurate theoretical and substantive understanding of migration. Through the authors' findings, we are shown what is possible when researchers are able to draw on a common source of comparable data to study migratory decision-making and outcomes across diverse origin countries. Specific outcomes help the authors to identify: common characteristics of pioneer migrants; gender effects on migration; the role that political shocks and violence can play in promoting emigration during times of political and economic transition; differences in the education profiles of emigrants from Latin American countries that lie at different ends of the migrant selectivity continuum; the important influence of remittances sent home by migrants and the migrants' occupational prospects once they return home; and the effect of U.S. immigration policies on the behavior and characteristics of immigrants.

This comparative approach to the study of migration represents a unique and innovative contribution to scholarship on international migration—a topic of considerable interest in the twenty-first century. Political scientists, sociologists, and policy-makers will find much value in these compelling and timely readings. For all social scientists who are interested in ethnic studies and migration, this volume provides inspiration for future research.