Beyond affirmative action: A developmental approach to racial redress in South Africa and the United States

In the decades following the end of legally enforced segregation, two nations—the United States and South Africa—faced a stubborn puzzle. Both countries dismantled the laws that kept people apart based on skin color and introduced policies designed to help those who had been historically excluded. In the United States, this took the form of affirmative action in schools and workplaces. In South Africa, it appeared as Black Economic Empowerment, a set of rules to bring Black citizens into business ownership and management. Yet, despite these efforts, the gap between the wealthy and the poor remained deeply divided along racial lines. Wealth, education, and health outcomes for Black populations in both nations continued to lag far behind those of their white counterparts. This persistence raised a difficult question: if the doors were opened, why did so many people still struggle to walk through them?

To understand this, researchers often look at two different types of barriers. The first is discrimination, which is the act of treating someone unfairly because of their race, such as refusing to hire them or paying them less. The second is something more subtle, known as stigma. Stigma is the internalized feeling of inferiority that can take root when society sends negative messages about a group's worth. It shapes how people see their own potential and how others see them, long after the laws have changed. A third concept, called development bias, suggests that the problem isn't just about being treated badly in the moment, but about the lack of resources and support needed to build skills and confidence in the first place. It is the difference between being allowed to enter a race and having the training, shoes, and nutrition to actually run it.

A new paper by Patricia Agupusi, a researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, tackles this enduring inequality by looking at both countries through a single lens. The study argues that the current methods of fixing racial inequality are incomplete because they focus too much on opening doors and not enough on building the path that leads to them. Agupusi proposes a shift in strategy, moving away from simple quotas or redistribution of wealth toward a "developmental approach." This method focuses on strengthening the conditions that allow people to turn opportunities into real, lasting success. By combining ideas about human potential with the study of social networks, the paper suggests that true equality requires more than just legal permission; it requires the active cultivation of the skills, confidence, and community support needed to thrive.

The paper begins by examining the history of these two nations to show that the problem is not a failure of good intentions, but a mismatch between the solution and the nature of the problem. In the United States, the Supreme Court recently ruled against race-conscious admissions in colleges, signaling a move toward a "color-blind" approach where the government ignores race entirely. In South Africa, the government has doubled down on race-based policies like Black Economic Empowerment, yet inequality remains high. Agupusi points out that both extremes miss the mark. A color-blind approach ignores the deep, historical damage that still shapes people's lives, while current race-based policies often help a small elite without fixing the broken foundations for the majority. The study finds that simply giving someone a scholarship or a job interview does not solve the deeper issue if they lack the stable housing, quality early education, or social connections needed to succeed in that new role.

To explain why this happens, the paper uses a framework built on the work of economist Glenn Loury and philosophers Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Loury distinguished between "reward bias," which is unfair treatment in the marketplace, and "development bias," which is the unfairness that happens before a person even enters the market. Development bias occurs when a child grows up in a neighborhood with poor schools, unsafe streets, and few role models, limiting their ability to develop their talents regardless of their natural ability. Sen and Nussbaum's "capability approach" adds that justice should be measured by what people are actually able to do and be, not just by the rights they hold on paper. Agupusi combines these ideas to argue that racial redress must focus on expanding these real capabilities. It is not enough to give a person a ticket to a train station; the policy must ensure they have the money for the ticket, the safety to get to the station, and the knowledge of where the train is going.

The research analyzes data from the 1960s to the present in the United States and from 2000 to 2024 in South Africa. It looks at household wealth, income, poverty, and unemployment rates, comparing them against policy changes. The findings show a clear pattern: while race-conscious policies have successfully increased the number of Black professionals in management and higher education, they have not closed the massive gap in wealth or solved the problem of poverty in Black communities. In South Africa, for instance, Black household income has risen, but the median earnings of Black families are still six times lower than those of white families. In the United States, the wealth gap remains staggering, with the average white family holding six times the wealth of the average Black family. The paper suggests that these policies have created a form of "elite inclusion," where a few individuals move up, but the broader community remains stuck in the same developmental traps.

Agupusi illustrates this with specific examples from both countries. In South Africa, the town of Imizamo Yethu in Cape Town faced high crime and a lack of safe spaces for youth. A project there did not just hand out money; it worked with the community to identify a library as a priority. The library became a safe hub that improved education and community trust. This small, targeted intervention worked because it addressed a specific developmental need identified by the people living there. In the United States, the paper points to the disparity in school readiness. A student in a wealthy district like Newton, Massachusetts, has access to resources that allow them to graduate with high grades, while a student in a nearby city like Springfield faces food insecurity and housing instability that make learning nearly impossible. The paper argues that simply removing race-conscious admissions policies in places like Harvard or Yale does not fix the fact that the students from Springfield never had the same chance to prepare for those exams in the first place.

The proposed solution is a developmental framework that treats racial redress as a long-term process of building capacity. This approach has three main pillars. First, it focuses on capability enhancement, which means investing early in the basics: high-quality schools, healthcare, safe housing, and digital access. Second, it emphasizes agency empowerment, which involves helping people overcome the psychological effects of stigma through mentorship, leadership training, and culturally responsive education. Third, it relies on social capital and institutional synergy, meaning that governments must work closely with local communities to design and implement programs. Instead of top-down mandates, this method encourages local ownership, where communities help decide what they need and how to get it.

The paper concludes that the transition from a society built on racial domination to one of true equality is far more difficult than simply changing the laws. It suggests that the "transition problem" cannot be solved by choosing between color-blind policies and race-conscious quotas. Instead, it requires a new focus on the developmental conditions that allow people to convert opportunities into real life outcomes. The study suggests that if policies continue to ignore the roots of development bias—such as poor early childhood education, fragmented social networks, and the lingering effects of stigma—racial inequality will persist regardless of the legal framework. By shifting the focus from who gets a seat at the table to ensuring everyone has the strength and support to sit there, the paper offers a path toward a more durable and meaningful form of justice. The goal is not just to fix the past, but to build a future where a person's potential is not limited by the circumstances of their birth.