This article suggests that regulations targeting the U.S. public sector may influence racial inequality in the private sector. Since the 1990s, nine states have banned affirmative action practice in public universities and state governments. I theorize that although these bans have no legal jurisdiction over private-sector firms, they could influence such firms normatively. After such a ban, executives who have been skeptical of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policies may feel more normative license to reduce commitment to EEO practices. Using a difference-in-differences estimation on 11,311 firms from 1985 to 2015, I find that the bans are indeed associated with slower racial progress in private-sector firms: after a state adopts the affirmative action ban, growth in the proportion of Black managers in establishments with corporate headquarters in that state slows by more than 50 percent, and this slowdown is mostly concentrated in firms with politically conservative CEOs. These findings suggest a mechanism for the persistence of racial inequality and show that regulations can influence actors well beyond legal jurisdictions.

中文翻译：

---

监管溢出和工作场所种族不平等

本文表明，针对美国公共部门的法规可能会影响私营部门的种族不平等。自 1990 年代以来，已有九个州禁止在公立大学和州政府开展平权行动。我的理论是，尽管这些禁令对私营部门的公司没有法律管辖权，但它们可以规范地影响这些公司。在这样的禁令之后，一直对平等就业机会 (EEO) 政策持怀疑态度的高管可能会感到更加规范，可以减少对 EEO 实践的承诺。使用 1985 年至 2015 年 11,311 家公司的差异差异估计，我发现禁令确实与私营部门公司的种族进步缓慢有关：在一个州采取平权行动禁令后，在该州设有公司总部的机构中，黑人经理的比例增长放缓了 50% 以上，而且这种放缓主要集中在政治上保守的 CEO 的公司中。这些发现提出了种族不平等持续存在的机制，并表明法规可以影响行为者远远超出法律管辖范围。