Why not all minorities are “minor enough”; why unfair enforcement is fair for somebody: here is 1st draft of the new paper “The Puzzle of Selectivity in Fighting Discrimination: A Public Choice Approach”. Advocates of the war against discrimination and affirmative actions’ supporters claim it all is necessary to set up additional regulatory procedures that will defend interests of minorities who, previously, were not given enough chances to succeed. Because there is no set definition of a minority who suffered from discrimination in the past (Historically Excluded Groups [HEGs] consider all women to be a minority), law-enforcement practices are to a large degree dependent on precedence (judicial authorities) as well as the behavior of bureaucrats who have the authority to defend people against discrimination. Incentives and the true criteria for choosing minorities will be analyzed in this report.
There are practices in the USA and Israel, as well as statistics of EEOC practices (a committee on equal rights in hiring, that is a kind of specialized public prosecution office) supporting the hypothesis that the main anti-discriminatory activity aims to mobilize groups who traditionally voted against a limited government, to vote for a nanny state that provides cradle to grave care. See the paper The Puzzle of Selectivity in Fighting Discrimination: A Public Choice Approach at SSRN.
