Outpul~ of MinorityEntrepreneurshipPrograms

3

Outputs of Minority E n tre p re neu rsh ip Programs GLENN DIXON

A

realistic appraisal indicates clearly that America is not the "melting pot" it has often claimed to be. Rather, it is characterized by a majority ethnic group whose society is dominant and a number of'smaller ethnic groups whose societies are both subordinate to and dependent upon the larger society. "Our nation is moving toward two. societies, one black, one white - separate and unequal." t The largest of these subsocieties is the one composed of black people in America. In 1968 the total non-white population was 24.1 millic,n; the total black population was 22.1 million. 2 It is the effect of minority entrepreneurship programs on this particular subsociety that will be dealt with in detail in this paper, and the most obvious indication of the existence of black subsocieties in America are black urban ghettos. Thomas L.iCross, author of a book entitled Black Capitalism, says that "The painfully apparent features of the ghetto economy are its economic weakness, a low level of productivity, and the poverty level of its const~mers. No so obvious is the economic isolation of the ghetto - its complete separation from the normal, mainstream economy - of which it

Glenn Dixon is a black graduate student from Brown University. This paper was written when he was a fellow at The Urban Institute. He is presently a t H o w a r d University.

4

The Review of black political economy

is a sick, dependent, and almost wholly owned subsidiary. 3 The extent to which there is a separate ghetto "economy" is debatable. It is, however, clear that poverty and some forms of economic isolation do exist. "About two-thirds of the lowest income group - or 20 percent of all Negro families - are making no significant economic gains despite continued general prosperity. Half of these hard core disadvantaged more than 2 million persons ,- live in central city neighborhoods." 4 In addition, blacks recognize that, "white middle class society, in reality, is not, and for a long time to come may not be, open to the millions of black Americans... Their economic status, their moral habits, and the image they have been given of themselves, condemn them to live and die trapped in the Negro ghettos of the urban centers of America. ''s Blacks, therefore, view the dependent subsociety as an inevitable and separate segment~ of American society. They recognize their poverty and they recognize that they are completely powerless to alter this situation. Finally, they hold no hope that white society, which consciously or unconsciously created these conditions, will ever change them. From these beliefs have arisen the feelings of frustration and open hostility which have been exploding into widespread violence in black ghetto areas ever since the early 1960's. This leads us to the consideration of two major problems to be attacked by government and business programs: 1. the poverty (less than $3,000.00 per year for a family of four) which characterizes at least 32 percent of the black population in America. 2.'the dependence and powerlessness of blacks which has lead to frustration and hence black violence. These problems are the result of the inequities between white and black society in America. II. What are the Inequities? In America, black unemployment rates for all age and sex categories are at least 2.5 times the unemployment rate for the nation as a whole, with blacks concentrated in jobs at the lower end of the occupational hierarchy. In addition, the median income of black families is only 63 percent of white median income. The economic inequities between black society and white society have traditionally been described in these terms - that is in terms of income and employment. However, an analysis of the ways in which white society and black society participate in the American economic system reveals certain additional inequities which have, in the past, been neglected. The American Economic System: A Framework The scarcity of resources is the basic situation which faces all economic systems. In attacking this problem "Every economy must somehow solve three fundamental economic problems: What kinds and quantities shall be produced of all possible goods and services; How economic resources shall be used in producing these goods; and For whom the goods shall be produced - i.e., what the distribution of income among different individuals and classes is to be." 6 In America these questions are answered through the price mechanism, the interaction of supply and demand in competitive markets. The price

Outputs of minority entrepreneurship programs

5

mechanism of the American economy is divided into a production side and a consumption side. The production side is composed of the producers of America's goods and services; the consumption side is composed of the consumers of those goods and services. Both public institutions and private institutions participate in the market structure. Under this framework the American economy would therefore be described as a " 'mixed,' free enterprise economic system in which both public and private institutions exercise economic controL" ~ The degree of participation, of a particular group or individual, in the economic system, can thus be defined in terms of the proportionate amount of the system's resources and institutions which that individual or group controls.

Inequities in Participation If the market flows are then analyzed in terms of the differences in control between black society and white society, the original framework presented is considerably altered. The alterations in the analysis indicate the existence of an additional black controlled market in which black producers sell goods and services to black consumers almost exclusively. However, black consumers also purchase goods and services in the white controlled market. Blacks thus participate in both the white and black controlled segments of the total economic system as consumers. "In 1967, aggregate money income as measured by this series (Series P-60, No. 59, Bureau of the Census) amounted to 487 billion dollars. Of this amount, 451 billion dollars was earned by the white population, and 35.7 billion was received by non-whites, representing 7.3 percent o f the total." a This figure is a definite indication of the participation of blacks in the overall economic system as consumers or controllers of income. The smallness of the proportionate figure, however, re-emphasizes the existence of the income-employment inequity. Furthermore, black partieil~ation in the production sector as controllers of the means of production is even less evident. "...proportionately far fewer blacks own or manage businesses than d o whites. In 1967 the percentage of non-whites employed as either managers, officials, or proprietors was 2.6 percent and this has been relatively constant over the past Fifteen years. The comparable figure for whites is 11 percent, again relatively constant over time. ''9 In addition "For the Negro in the United States, the greatest barrier imposed by segregation was not in the market for goods - to which they had relatively open access but in the market for personal services, such as barber and beauty shops and funeral services. Consequently, a protected market evolved for the provision of th~se services within the Negro community, xo It is, therefore, probably more accurate to describe the economic isolation of ghetto neighborhoods, not in terms of a separate "ghetto economy," but as a weak, restricted, black controlled market created and maintained by racial discrimination. The marginal participation of blacks in the production sector of the American .economy indicates the existence of at least three inequities which must be added to the traditional inequities of income and employment: 1. the inequity in the proportionate number of black entrepreneurs 2. the inequity in the proportionate amount of the economy's resources and institutions controlled by blacks

6

The Review of black political economy

3. the inequity in the potential for participation because of racial discrimination Whether or not reduction of these additional inequities is possible under existing and planned programs is a question which must be preceded by a determination of the outpLits of particular programs. Questions relevant to this problem are considered in the following section. III. What are the Outputs? Existing minority entrepreneurship programs have almost all been designed to produce outputs of increased income and increased employment. There are two fundamentally related reasons for this: 1. The economic inequities between blacks and whites in America have always been described in these terms. 2. Therefore, the programs have been designed to benefit only black individuals and the government or business agencies which have structured and implemented the programs. Programs which seek to reduce income and employment inequities by producing those variables as outputs may, in so doing, have an effect on the major problem of black urban poverty. The approach, however, still has three major deficiencies; 1. it does not consider the possible effects, positive or negative, of the outputs of income and employment on the racially segregated black controlled market within ghetto neighborhoods 2. it neglects the possible outputs of minority entrepreneurship programs which could directly accrue to black neighborhoods although they may have no direct effects on administering agencies or institutions 3. it neglects the indirect effects, positive or negative, of aU considered outputs on black neighborhoods and administering institutions or agencies In other words, it appears as though traditional approaches to listing and defining outputs of these programs are inadequate. The inequities which define the problem of poverty are addressed, but the inequities which produce the dependence and powerlessness of black neighborhoods in America are, for the most part, neglected. Outputs which speak to these inequities must therefore be considered. These outputs, which will be labeled power, mobility, and identity, will be considered in addition to the traditional outputs of income and employment. Definitions and Suggested Measures of Outputs 1. Income will be defined as money received as a return for labor or services (wages), as a return from the use of property (rent), or as a return for other investments (interest). It may be measured in terms of total income or in terms of average or per capita income. When the specific effect on business is under consideration total business income may be utilized as measures. 2. Employment will be defined either, as the ratio of people who have jobs out of all people looking for jobs ( - ~ where E = employed people, LF =iabor force), or as the ratio of people who have jobs or are looking for

Outputs of minority entrepreneurship programs

7

jobs out of the total population (J~- where LF = labor force, P = total population). The first of these ~atios is a measure of employmentunemployment rates and the second of labor force participation rates. 3. Power will be deiVmed as the ability to effectively implement demands. It results from an interaction of economic resources and the political, economic, and social institutions which respond to and protect those resources. It accrues to whoever controls that interaction. The output of power to the particular individual or group in control may be measured in terms of the amount of economic resources and the effectiveness of the interacting institutions. The determination of the amount of economic resources would require that an account be made of the quantity and quality of land, labor, and capital. The determination of the effectiveness of the interacting institutions would necessitate an evaluation (perhaps cost-benefit) of those institutions. The list of political instittRions would include governmental structures or agencies, and political parties or organizations. The list of economic institutions would include all those classified as businesses. Under this heading would be the service businesses such as barber shops and drycleaning establishments, retail businesses such as grocery stores and restaurants, iVmancial businesses such as banks, insurance, and real estate companies, and manufacturing businesses such as plastics companies and automobile producers. Finally, the list of social institutions would include protective institutions such as police and fire departments; and educational institutions such as school systems and job training programs. Resources and institutions are interdependent in the production of power. Access to resources without access to institutions which protect and respond to those resources would not result in the output of power. Power is produced only by the interaction of the two. It is this output which speaks to black demands for self-determination, and this is what makes it a direct output for blacks. 4. Mobility will be defined as the ability to move upward to an employment opportunity higher on the occupational hierarchy in terms of educational requirements and/or wages. This might be accomplished by increasing the ability of a person or group to move to the location of an opportunity or by increasing their ability to advance in a particular given location. To achieve the output of mobility by either of these means would require, a reduction in obstacles imposed by racial discrimination. It is this reduchon in discrimination which is the crucial factor that makes increased mobility a direct output for blacks. It may be measured in terms of changes in migration rates and in terms of changes in the occupational distribution for blacks. 5. Identity will be defined as that output used to describe the development of social cohesion among black people in America today. The production of identity, thus defined, as an output almost inevitably strengthens the institutions, which produce the output of power. However, the development of a social identity also promotes a sense of group self-esteem and self-confidence, and it is this additional factor that makes identity a direct output for blacks. A measure for identity is very difficult to formulate. It can however be

The Review of black political economy

8

described in terms of the development of a social community. To the extent that this can be observed to be occurring, the output is being produced. The exact sociological methodology for making th/s observation /s beyond the immediate scope of this paper. Nevertheless, identity retains its importance as a direct output to blacks. In addition, the determination of the economic magnitude of the benefit stream accruing from these outputs will not be cons/dered here. To do so would necessitate the specification of pricing processes, and this too is beyond the immediate scope of this paper. IV. The Layering of Benefits Direct Recipients Here we will consider the effects of the outputs listed earlier on the following groups: 1. Black individuals 2. Black neighborhoods 3. Municipal governments 4. National governments 5. Business institutions The following matrix, Figure l, indicates which of these groups are the direct recipients of minority entrepreneursh/p programs - assuming that the programs are designed to make blacks the primary beneficiaries of the outputs.

FIGURE 1 DIRECT RECIPIENTS OF OUTPUTS OF MINORITY OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Employment 1 Income 2 Mobility

3

Identity Power

4 5

Black Indiv.

Black Neigh.

City Gov't.

1

2

3

4

5

(+) Bll (+) B21 (+) B31 (+) B41 (+) B51

(+) B12 (+) B22 (+) B32 (+) B42 (+)B52

(+) B13 (+) B23 (0) B33 (0) B43 (0) B53

(+) B14 (+) B24 (0) B34 (0) B44 (0) B54

(+) B15 (+) B25 (0) B35 (0) B45 (0) B55

(*) Bij (0) Bij (-) Bij

National Gov't.

Business Instit.

- positive output of i to group j - no output of i, positive or negative, to group j - negative output of i to group j

Outputs of minority entrepreneurship programs

9

This assumption, however, does not rule out the possibility of positive direct effects on other groups as well. For example, income and employment are directly received by all concerned groups. An increase in the income and employment of black individuals and black neighborhoods will almost certainly directly increase income and employment for municipal governments, the national government, and business institutiorts. However; power, mobility, and identity, as def'med in this paper, are directly received only by black individuals and black neighborhoods. This conclusion is thus also based on the original assumption that the programs are designed to make blacks the primary beneficiaries of the outputs. Again this is very probably one reason why these outputs have not been considered in the past. They are irrelevant to the government or business policy maker as far as direct effects are concerned. Indirect Beneficiaries The determination of the indirect beneficiaries of the outputs requires a more involved analysis. There are varying payoffs as a result of the varying indirect effects of creating the listed outputs in different ways. It is these indirect effects which may create conflicts between the concerned groups. Conflicts, however, are not inevitable. A positive benefit of an output to one group may well have an indirect effect on another group which is negative, but the effect may be positive or neutral as well. It depends upon the intermediate inputs which are involved in the production of the output. The resolution of the conflicts which do arise may, nonetheless, be very. difficult. "The essential principle of matching the affluent man's needs with the poor man's needs is difficult to implement. Indeed it is often difficult to determine the real economic needs of the poor and separate them from the psychic non-economic needs of the affluent. Instead of helping the impoverished black, the businessman is often helping himself.'" 11 The same is true of government programs. For example, consider the possible effects of a program mix combining: 1. A Direct Federal Loan Program 2. A Training Program for Potential Entrepreneurs and make the very probable assumption that employment growth, in general, is greater outside of black urban ghettos. As a result of the program the number of black owned businesses would increase, but the question is: Would these businesses locate or even invest profits earned outside in an area in which employment was declining? After a government sponsored business training program it is very doubtful. Would they even remain in such an area with their mobility increased by a higher income and more education? That too is doubtful. The increased mobility of the program participants would very probably increase their migration out of black neighborhoods. This would mean that the young knowledgeable entrepreneurs - the most productive membds of the neighborhood - will move out. There will thus be negative indirect effects on the neighborhood because of: 1. the decrease in income flows in the neighborhood because of those who move out. 2. the decrease in labor services flows in the neighborhood because of

I0

The Review of black politicaleconomy

those who move out. Such a program will probably accelerate the stagnation of a neighborhood although black individuals, city and national governments, and business institutions would definitely be direct recipients of the outputs. The potential for the generation of conflicts such as the one described above is indicated by the multiple sign components of the matrix in Figure 2. Multiple signs for a particular component of the matrix point up the fact that different indirect payoffs may result from different intermediate inputs utiliTed in the production of the five stated outputs. Examples of actual programs with varying degrees of conflict are discussed in the following section. FIGURE 2 INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES OF OUTPUTS OF MINORITY OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Employment Income Mobility Identity Power

1 2 3 4 5

Black Indiv.

Black Neigh.

City Gov't.

National Gov't.

Business Instil

I

2

3

4

5

(+)bll (+)b21 (+)b31 (+)b41 (+)b51

(-,0,+) b12 (-,0,+)b22 (-,0,+) b32 (+)b42 (+)b52

(+)b13 (+)b23 (-,0,+)b34 (-,0,+)b43 (-,0,+)b53

(+)b14 (+)b24 (-,0,+)b34 (-,0,3) b44 (-,0,+)b54

(+)b15 (+)b2s (-,0,+)b35 (-,0,+)b45 (-,0,+) b55

(+) bij - positivebenefit of output i to group j (0) bij - no benefit, positive or negative, of output ij i to group j (-) bij - negativebenefit of output i to group j V. Programs and Output Conflicts An analysis of existing minority entrepreneurship programs leads one to suspect that, for the most part, such programs have not been designed to benefit black individuals and black neighborhoods, or that they have been so designed only insofar as the benefits to black individuals and neighborhoods are coincident with benefits to the larger government and/or business community. A list of the existing programs and the outputs they produce, which supports this conclusion, appears in Figure 3. One example of a program combination which illustrates this situation is the Rochester Business Opportunities Corporation. The stated objectives of RBOC are to "serve as a development corporation through which all elements in the community can channel resources to promote Negroowned and operated businesses. Its incorporators hope in this manner to help inner city people develop a stake in the city's economic life as a

Outputs of minority entrepreneurship programs

11

attack on poverty problems." 12 In effect, RBOC says it seeks to solve the two main problems mentioned earlier. Outputs of Various Minority Entrepreneurship Programs Capital Augmentation Programs

Io

Y

" ~ P U I " S I'RO(IRAMS I. Dire~.'t Federal Loan

+

2. I:edcra[ Loan Guarantee

+

3. C'on~t)rtiuln of Privale Bunks

+

+

4. Local I)evd.

+

§

§

+

+

+

+

+

+

8. Small Busine.~.~ Inveslment ('O'S.

+

+

4-

9. Community Development Banks

+

4.

+

4

('ontpany

5. DevcL Corp. Outside Board 6.

Minority O w n e d ( ' o m m c r c i a l Banks

7. ( ' o n m t u n i l y

('oll|nt~rcial Banks

II. ManagementAssistance Programs

1. Direct FL~leral Management Assistance 2. Service Corps Retirc~ Execs 3. Federally Funded ManagementCenters 4. Federal Manage Assistancc ( ' o n l r a c t s 5. G r a n t t o F~uy Manage. As.sis, 6. i n c l u s i o n o f Funds in L o a n s '7. Subsidized

Manag~ment Assistant1 8. Management']'raining Program

§

12

The Review of black political economy III.

Markets Strengthening Programs

TS

PROGRAMS" ~ / I. Channelfing Gov't Contracts

2. C"pt~'r Supplier Relationships

It proposes to do so, first of all, by supplying venture capital to minority enterpreneurs through a development corporation controUed by the white business community in Rochester. It serves as a conduit for both government and private loans as well as for equity capital, usually supplied through the purchase of stock in the enterprise by RBOC. A black organization called FIGHT which agitated for the creation of the program is excluded from the corporation because the white business community felt that it should be business based. According to Figure 3 such a development corporation will produce the outputs of increased income, employment, and power, but the resources and ~nstitutions that RBOC seeks to estabhsh are designed to be "business based," that is controlled by whites. The output of power, therefore, accrues to the white businessmen administering the program not to blacks. To increase managerial assistance to minority entrepreneurs RBOC engages the Service Corps of Retired Executives; they also engage the management staffs of large corporations like Eastman Kodak. Clearly, this aspect of the program increases business knowledge and hence mobility, but is not at all concerned with the output of either power or identity. RBOC also seeks to resolve the problem of strengthening markets in black ghetto neighborhoods by negotiating purchasing commitments for some of the entrepreneurs which it funds, and engages in research into new business opportunities to order to further strengthen the market for its clients. It is clear, however, that RBOC has not managed to completely separate its own interest from those of the black neighborhoods which it serves. It attempts to attack the problems through the outputs of income, employment, and mobility to blacks. They receive neither of the outputs of power nor identity. The conflict over the output of power produced by this program is clear. The indirect effects of the white business community maintaining control and hence power over the resources and institutions of the black individuals and neighborhoods of Rochester is a positive benefit only to the white business community. Black individuals and neighborhoods, definitely view this power distribution as a negative indirect effect, an external diseconomy. It does not really address itself to the inequities involving the depdndence and powerlessness of black individuals and neighborhoods. The resulting black frustration is one of the major causes of inner city riots.

Outputs of minority entrepreneurship programs

13

According to the matrix in Figure 2, however, positive effects as well can be derived from the output of power. The main positive benefit being a reduction in the possibility that such rioting will occur. Another program combination which seeks to solve the two problems and at the same time reduces the conflicts inherent in RBOC - is the "Ghediplan" proposed for New York City by Dr. Dunbar S. McLaurin. The stated objectives of the Ghediplan are: "To remove the basic cause of poverty, namely the lack of a productive ghetto economy. "To provide the machinery by which the ghettos themselves may increase their own productivity by overhauling, diversifying, and restructuring their entire economics... "To aid the ghettos in retaining this. new productivity - profits as well as wages through local ownership and control" 13 This represents a considerable expansion over the objectives of RBOC. This program seeks to solve the two basic problems by strengthening the economic markets in black neighborhoods, not just by promoting Negro owned and operated businesses. The tools proposed to achieve these objectives are structures to provide "Guaranteed Financing" and "Guaranteed Markets" for the businesses created by the program. These tools would be administered by a city agency which would be responsible for organizing and implementing the program. Veuture capital and construction capital would be allocated by Local Development Corporations and Small Business Investment Companies. These funds would then be channelled through Small Business Development Centers each of which is responsible for one ghetto area. Such a program would certainly promote the growth of black businesses, thus leading to the production of the outputs of increased income and increased employment. To increase the level of managerial expertise in ghetto areas, the Ghediplan proposes to engage private economic consultant firms. The assistance of the Small Business Administration is also included as part of this aspect of the program. This approach, clearly, increases business knowledge and therefore produces the output of increased mobility of the program participants. Guaranteed Markets would be established by channelling local government contracts into ghetto businesses. This would be accomplished by purchasing commitments negotiated by the city administrative agency or by the Small Business Development Company, and would be an additional factor in the production of the outputs of income and employment. In addition, as stated earlier, one of the major objectives of this program is to aid the ghettos in retaining any generated surplus through local ownership and control. "Ownership will be local, both through widespread stock participation, and through private entrepreneurship. The ultimate goal will be to turn all machinery over to private local enterprise, and dissolve the city administrative office." 14 If effectively implemented, this tactic would serve to produce the outputs of both identity and power in black neighborhoods. These are direct outputs of the Ghediplan which would accrue immediately to black individuals and black neighborhoods although not necessarily to any other

14

The Review of black political economy

concerned group. A comparison of these plans, especially with respect to the output of power, is an example of the way in which varying payoffs result from producing the same output in different ways. Specifically, such a comparison indicates the degree to which such programs might be effective in developing the segregated, black market in our economy and thus solving the two fundamental problems of poverty and powerlessness. VI. Conclusions Municipal governments, national governments, and business ~nstitutions will almost certainly receive indirect positive benefits ff programs such as the Ghediplan are implemented and effective in producing identity and power. This is the kind of attack on the fundamental problems which does address the problem of the dependence and powerlessness of blacks. The result of such a program is to reduce the possibility of widespread, black, urban violence. This would be a positive benefit for all concerned groups. Therefore, although it may be impossible to establish a program combination which will produce outputs that directly benefit all concerned groups, a program combination producing an agreement rather than a conflict can be established reflecting the indirect benefits of all concerned groups. The heretofore unconsidered direct outputs to black individuals and black neighborhoods of power, mobility, and identity are fundamental necessities for the creation such an agreement. A proposed design for the evaluation of minority entrepreneurship programs - with respect to how blacks are affected by such programs must be able to answer the following questions and determine to what extent the answers do, in fact, agree: 1. What are the external economies and diseconomies for black individuals of particular programs producing the outputs proposed here? 2. What are the external economies and diseconomies for black neighborhoods of particular programs producing the outputs proposed here? 3. What are the external economies and diseconomies for other concerned groups of particular programs producing the outputs proposed here? Ultimately, the determination of the effectiveness of the programs w/I] depend on which of these questions is ranked fu-st as a standard of value. In light of past neglect of the direct and indirect effects on black neighborhoods, it is now necessary for program planners to recognize that the second question, with its inherent implications for the economic development of viable black commun/ties, should head such a list, and accordingly that the programs which create external economies for black neighborhoods should be the first priority strateg/es in any attack on the fundamental problems.

Outputs of minority entrepreneurship programs

15

Footnotes LNatJonRI Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the Commission; March 1, 1968.

2From: "~Population Characteristics," Series P-20, No. 181, April 21, 1969, Table A -- Population of the United States by Metropolitan Non-metropolitan Residence and Race; 1968 and 1960.

3"Cross, T.L., Black Cepitalism.Athenedm, New York, 1969, p. 31.

4"National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Op. Cit., p. 123.

5. Eseien-Udom, E. V., Black Nationalism. Dell Publishing Co., I962, p. 16.

6"Samuelson, Paul, Economics - An Introductory Analysis, McGraw Hill, (New York 7961) p. 34.

7. Ibid., p. 37.

8"8rimmer, A., "The Black Revolution and the Future of the Negro in the U.S.," Commencement Address, TennesseeA & I Universiw Federal ReserveBoard, June 8, 1969. The aggregate money income figure was computed using income before taxes of families and unrelated individuals.

9"Daniels, Mark, "A Policy Perspective on the Economics of Black Capitalism" (unpublished paper for OEO), September 12, 1969, p. 1I.

lO.Brimmer, A., Small Business and Economic Development in the Negro Community (statement before the Select Committee on Small Business), Federal Reserve Board, July 25, 1969.

If'Cross, T.L., Op. Cit, p. 8.

12"Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., Urban Action Clearinghouse, CaseStudy No. 6, Washington, D.C., p. 1.

13.McLaurin, D.S., Ghediplan, The Human ResourcesAdministration -- City of New York, April 1968, p. xii.

14"lb/d., p. xiii.

16

The Review of black political economy

Bibfiography 1. Booms, B. H. and Ward, J. E., "The Cons of Black Capitalism," (unpublished paper), Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. 2. Brimmer, A. F., "The Black Revolution and the Economic Future of Negroes in the United States," (commencement address - Tennessee A & I University), The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 8, 1969. 3. Brimmer, A. F., "Small Business and Economic Development in the Negro Community," (unpublished paper), The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 25, 1969. 4. Chamber of Commerce of the United States, "Rochester Business Opportunities Corporation Helps Ghetto Dwellers Own Business," Case Study No. 6, Urban Action Clearinghouse, Washington, D.C., October 1968. 5. Cohen, B. I. and Noll, R. G., "Employment Trends in Central Cities," (unpublished paper obtained at Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.). 6. Cohen, B. I., "Less Developed Countries and U,5. Domestic Problems," (unpublished paper obtained at Urban Institute Washington D.C.) 7. Committee for Economic Development, Community Economic Development Efforts, New York: Praeger, 1966. 8. Congress of Racial Equality, "'Community Self Determination Bill A Summa~" (unpublished) New York, February 1969. 9. Cross, T. L., Black Capitalism, New York: Atheneum, 1969. 10. Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President 1969, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969. 11. Daniels, M. R., "A Policy Perspective on the Economics of Black Capitalism" (unpublished paper for OEO and the Brookings Institution), Washington, D.C., 1969. 12. Essien-Udom, E. V., Black Nationalism, New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1962. 13. Garn, H. and McGuire, M. C., "Problems in the Cooperative Allocation of Public Expenditures," Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXXIII, February, 1969. 14. Garn, H., "Tentative Cost/Job Estimates-for Programs in Urban Areas," (unpublished paper for Office of Program Plans and Analysis), Washington, D.C., August 1967. 15. Gibson, D. P., The $30 Billion Negro, London: Macmillan Co., 1969. 16. James Hudson, Jr., "Economics and Black Politics," (unpublished paper for the Urban Institute), Washington, D.C. 1969. 17. McLaurin, D. S., "Ghetto Economic Development and Industrialization Plan," Human Resources Administration of the City of New York; April, 1968. 18. Moskowitz, M. (Ed.), "Where It's At: Black Capitalism," Business and Society, (Vol. 1, No. 13), December 17, 196g.

Outputs of minority entrepreneurship programs

17

19. National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the Commission, Washington, D.C., 1968. 20. Parsons, T. and Clark, K., The Negro American, Boston: Beacon Press, 1965. 21. Perry, S., "Black Institutions, Black Separatism, and Ghetto Economic Development," (unpublished paper for OEO), Washington, D.C., 1969. 22. Perry, S., "Federal Encouragement of Minority Group Entrepreneurship" (unpublished paper for OEO), Washington, D.C., 1969. 23. Perry, S., "OEO Special Impact Program: Problems and Prospects" (unpublished paper for OEO), Washington,D.C., 1969. 24. Ranis, G., "Economic Dualism at Home and Abroad," (unpublished paper for the Urban Institute), Washington,D.C. 25. S. 2146, "The Community Credit Expansion Act," Government Printing Office, May 13, 1969. 26. S. 3875, "'The Community Self-Determination Act," Government Printing Office, July 24, 1968. 27. Samuelson, P. A., Economies: An Introductory Analysis (5th F;dition), New York: McGraw Hill, 1961. 28. , Special Analyses: Budget of the United States, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, Fiscal Year 1970. 29. Weinberg, R., "Minority Entrepreneurship," (unpublished paper for the Bureau of the Budget), Washington,D.C.