October 4, 2021

Economic Letter

From Gaps to Growth: Equity as a Path to Prosperity

Listen to our reports with a personalized podcasts through your Amazon Alexa or Apple devices audio translated into several languages

From Gaps to Growth: Equity as a Path to Prosperity 1

Mary C. Daly

The pandemic has shined a vivid light on the deep roots of economic inequity, showing that the rules are not the same for everyone. Persistent, unfair gaps in opportunity and well-being across different groups in our society limit people’s potential. Eliminating these inequities could substantially boost GDP and increase the economy’s long-run rate of growth, leading to greater prosperity for all. The following is adapted from remarks by the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to the UCLA Anderson Forecast Webinar on September 29.

As Americans, one of our most deeply held beliefs is that anyone, no matter where they come from or who they are, can make it. They just have to work hard and play by the rules. This assumption permeates our political system, our institutions, and our economy.

But crises can be illuminating. The pandemic has shined a vivid light on the deep roots of economic inequity, forcing us to recognize that the rules aren’t the same for everyone. COVID has taken the most from the people and communities that are least able to bear it. And long-standing gaps in economic opportunity and well-being have grown deeper and wider.

As humans, we are adaptive. We get used to things. We live a certain way for long enough, and we begin to believe that’s the way it’s supposed to be. We forget that the gaps we see every day reflect accumulated inequities—the long tail of policy, luck or inattention that has made it easier for some and harder for others to reach their potential. And then, an economy that leaves large numbers of people behind starts to seem normal.

I’m going to talk about why this way of looking at the world limits our potential, and how we can use the lessons of the pandemic to forge a more equitable society—one with fewer gaps and greater prosperity for all.

The bridle of our assumptions

Now, before we imagine a more equitable world, it’s important to take stock of the one we have. Economists and many others generally assume that resources are allocated according to their most productive uses and that all available resources are fully deployed. Unless there is blatant market failure—collusion, discrimination, or other obvious barriers to entry—we believe that any differences in initial conditions will smooth out over time. In other words, no matter where you are born or how you start out, the marketplace will ensure that you land where you’re supposed to be.

And there are many examples of this being true. Amazing stories of people starting with little and doing a lot—confirming our belief that markets work efficiently and human capital is put to its best uses with few mistakes.

But this can be misleading. It can make us think that the world we have is all it could ever be. And this bridles our economy’s potential. It leaves countless people contributing less than their talents and interests would allow, sometimes sidelining them completely.


To get a sense of what we stand to gain from building a world with few gaps, it’s useful to review what some of the disparities look like. Many groups fare less well than the averages we hear about each day. But disparities for Black Americans, many of whom bear the costs of both historical and current discrimination, are especially sizeable. So, their experiences are an important starting point.

The differences start at a young age. The average Black child in the United States is about three times more likely than the average white child to live in a poor household—one with resources below the official poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). Black children are relatively less likely to graduate from high school and even less likely to go onto college. For example, in 2019 the high school graduation rate for Black students was 80%, compared to 89% for white students (National Center for Education Statistics 2021). In 2019, the college enrollment rate for recent Black high school graduates was a little over 50%, compared to roughly 67% for whites (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020).

Black students who do go to college don’t always finish. In fact, a recent cohort study found that at the six-year mark 45% had not graduated and were no longer enrolled. By comparison, only 27% of white students had left without graduating (Shapiro et al. 2017). These differences in completion rates trace back to a variety of factors including finances, academic preparation and support, and representation (National Center for Education Statistics 2019 and Espinosa, Turk, Taylor, and Chessman 2019).

But the gaps don’t end with education. They continue on into the labor market and beyond. Black college graduates are less likely to be employed than white college graduates and, when they do find jobs, are more likely to be in occupations that do not utilize, or even require, their skills (Williams and Wilson 2019, Abel and Deitz 2019, Daly, Hobijn, and Pedtke 2020, and Buckman, Choi, Daly, and Seitelman 2021). All of this translates into lower average earnings for Black Americans even when they have college degrees.

Perhaps most troubling, college-educated Black workers lose ground over their careers. Indeed, in work that my colleagues and I have done, we found that the earnings gap between Black and white college-educated men doubles over the first 15 years of their professional life (Daly, Hobijn, and Pedtke 2020).

In the end, this means that fewer Black men and women are contributing their full potential to the economy. But it doesn’t stop there. Hispanic Americans, women, indigenous Americans, people living in rural areas, and many other groups persistently fall behind, with lower rates of education, employment and earnings than we might expect if opportunities were equitably available (Buckman, Choi, Daly, and Seitelman 2021, Shrider, Kollar, Chen, and Semega 2021, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019, Blau and Kahn 2017, Marré 2017, Glaeser 2011, Akee 2021, and Bengali, Daly, Lofton, and Valletta 2021). Some of the groups deviate from the general patterns described. For example, Hispanic American men have higher employment rates than men from other racial and ethnic groups, and women are more likely to hold college degrees than men.

Leaving these gaps unaddressed is clearly unfair. But it’s also unproductive. It keeps millions of people on the sidelines or underutilized and sells the economy short. No entrepreneur would ever stand for it. The question is, why do we?

From gaps to growth

One reason is that we don’t fully understand what we’re missing. We don’t regularly calculate the losses from exclusion or the potential gains from being more inclusive—at least, not on an aggregate, economy-wide level. My colleagues and I recently did just that.

We asked a simple question: What would the economic output of the nation be if gaps in outcomes by race and ethnicity were erased (Buckman, Choi, Daly, and Seitelman 2021)? For each year from 1990 to 2019, we eliminated gaps in employment, hours, education, and educational utilization. And we gave racial and ethnic minorities the values of their white counterparts. We then recomputed the potential output for each year. What we found was significant.

When gaps are closed, the gains from equity are nearly $23 trillion over a 30-year period—a large piece of the economic pie unrealized or simply left on the table by tolerating the gaps that we see.

Other studies have found similar potential gains. For example, a 2014 study found that closing racial gaps in income in 2012 would have increased GDP by $2.1 trillion that year (Truehaft, Scoggins, and Tran 2014). More recently, a study conducted by leading researchers in the private banking sector found that closing gaps between Black and white adults in wages, higher education, home ownership, and entrepreneurship would have led to a GDP boost of $16 trillion over the past 20 years, and a projected $5 trillion gain over the next five years (Peterson and Mann 2020). In other words, a range of studies, using different methods and closing different gaps, all point to the same thing: substantial gains from a more inclusive economy.

But how will we get there? A recent study done by scholars at Stanford University and the University of Chicago provides some clues. They look back in time and examine the economic impact of taking down barriers to entry for women and Black workers in the fifty years spanning 1960 to 2010 (Hsieh, Hurst, Jones, and Klenow 2019). They find that better allocation of these workers throughout the economy—putting talent where it was needed—accounted for between 20 and 40% of the total growth in U.S. output over the period. Moreover, they showed that most of this improvement came from reducing human capital barriers and labor market discrimination. Simply put, removing barriers for some improved output for all.

These and other studies make it clear that using all of our resources more fully improves aggregate prosperity. But the gains are likely to go beyond a boost in the level of GDP. Reducing disparities could also increase the economy’s long-run rate of growth.

To understand why, we need to go back to the 1980s, when future Nobel laureate Paul Romer had an idea. He hypothesized that the driver of economic growth is really ideas—innovations in thinking that lead to the development of new technologies, higher productivity, and more and faster growth over the long run (Romer 1990, 1994). In other words, ideas determine how quickly the economic pie grows. See Jones (2019) for an overview of the original work and subsequent literature.

His theory tells us that we can boost GDP growth by investing in strategies that foster the development and implementation of ideas. And not just of a few, but of everyone.

The first and most obvious strategy to boost the generation of ideas is to increase access to high-quality education and the academic supports needed to help students stay on course. Education equips people with the knowledge and the skills they need to innovate. And it doesn’t always take a four-year degree. Think of all the computer programmers out there who started coding as kids. Investing in students at an early age and offering them a pathway to learn is equally important (García, Heckman, Leaf, and Prados 2020 and Rolnick and Grunewald (2003).

Another way to encourage idea generation is to create more equitable ways to fund them. Wealth enables people to implement their ideas. But wealth gaps are large in our country, and racial and ethnic minorities are especially far behind (Bhutta et al. 2020). Gaps in financing or borrowing to fund ideas are also large (see Federal Reserve Banks 2021 and Apgar and Calder 2005). This means that whole communities of people have less financial support for putting their innovations into practice.

Finally, we need to increase diversity and inclusion in businesses and government. A large and growing body of research shows that diverse teams enhance performance. Less diverse teams eat into profitability (see, for example, Kline, Rose, and Walters 2021 and Herring 2009). I see this in my own organization every day. The best teams are the most diverse teams—ones that include a range of views, backgrounds, and experiences.

The bottom line is this: making sure everyone has a chance to generate and nurture their ideas is good for growth, and ultimately delivers greater prosperity to us all.

Switching our lens

Now, I want to leave you with a story. A girl from a lower income family does well in school, reads a lot, likes to learn. But the family finances, and the family itself, fall on hard times. And the young girl, needing to assist, drops out of school. When she tells her teacher she is leaving, he doesn’t blink. He says he always knew that she wouldn’t amount to anything, and that her decision has just confirmed it.

Fast forward a few years, and the girl meets a woman named Betsy. And Betsy tells her that the job she wants, to drive a bus, requires a GED, and so do many others. So, the girl gets one. Then, Betsy tells her that many more jobs require college and that she should go. And on it goes, until one day the girl—now a woman—earns a Ph.D. and heads off into the world to try and make a difference.

That girl, as you might have guessed, was me. And I tell you that story to show one thing: the lens we use determines what we do. My teacher and Betsy saw me differently. And because they saw me differently, they acted differently towards me. Betsy paid for my first semester of college. My teacher simply erased me.

We can take for granted that the outcomes we see today are inevitable and watch as the pandemic makes existing gaps deeper and our prospects for future growth even slower. Or we can see them as a sign that resources aren’t being used to their fullest, and that people with great potential are being kept each day from realizing it.

The choice is clear. The will is ours.

Mary C. Daly is president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.


Abel, Jaison, and Richard Deitz. 2019. “Underemployment in the Early Careers of College Graduates following the Great Recession.” Chapter in Education, Skills, and Technical Change: Implications for Future US GDP Growth, eds. Charles R. Hulten and Valerie A. Ramey. NBER and University of Chicago Press, pp. 149-181.

Akee, Randall. 2021. “The Great Recession and Economic Outcomes for Indigenous Peoples in the United States.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 695(1), pp. 143-157.

Apgar, William, and Allegra Calder. 2005. “The Dual Mortgage Market: The Persistence of Discrimination in Mortgage Lending.” Chapter in The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America, ed. Xavier de Souza Briggs. Brookings Institution Press, pp. 101-124.

Bengali, Leila, Mary C. Daly, Olivia Lofton, and Robert G. Valletta. 2021. “The Economic Status of People with Disabilities and their Families since the Great Recession.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 695(1), pp. 123-142.

Bhutta, Neil, Andrew C. Chang, Lisa J. Dettling, Joanne W. Hsu, and Julia Hewitt, 2020. “Disparities in Wealth by Race and Ethnicity in the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances.” Federal Reserve Board of Governors, FEDS Notes, (September 28).

Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence Kahn. 2017. “The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations.” Journal of Economic Literature 55 (3), pp. 789–865.

Buckman, Shelby R., Laura Y. Choi, Mary C. Daly¸ and Lily M. Seitelman. 2021. “The Economic Gains from Equity.” BPEA Conference Draft, Fall.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2019. “Women in the Labor Force: A Databook.” Report 1084, December.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020. “66.2 Percent of 2019 High School Graduates Enrolled in College in October 2019.” The Economics Daily, (May 22).

Daly, Mary C., Bart Hobijn, and Joseph H. Pedtke. 2020. “Labor Market Dynamics and Black–White Earnings Gaps.” Economics Letters 186 (January).

Espinosa, Lorelle L., Jonathan M. Turk, Morgan Taylor, and Hollie M. Chessman. 2019. “Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education: A Status Report”. American Council on Education.

Federal Reserve Banks. 2021. “Small Business Credit Survey: 2021 Report on Firms Owned by People of Color.” Fed Small Business Report.

García, Jorge Luis, James J. Heckman, Duncan Ermini Leaf, and María José Prados. 2020.”Quantifying the Life-Cycle Benefits of an Influential Early-Childhood Program.” Journal of Political Economy 128(7), pp. 2502-2541.

Glaeser, Edward. 2011. Triumph of the City. New York: Penguin Press.

Herring, Cedric. 2009. “Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity.” American Sociological Review, 74(2), pp. 208–224.

Hsieh, Chang-Tai, Erik Hurst, Charles I. Jones, and Peter J. Klenow. 2019. “The Allocation of Talent and U.S. Economic Growth.” Econometrica, 87(5), pp. 1439–1474.

Jones, Charles I. 2019. “Paul Romer: Ideas, Nonrivalry, and Endogenous Growth.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 121(3), pp. 859–883.

Kline, Patrick M., Evan K. Rose, and Christopher R. Walters. 2021. “Systemic Discrimination Among Large U.S. Employers.” NBER Working Paper 29053, July.

Marré, Alexander. 2017. “Rural Education at a Glance, 2017 Edition.” Economic Information Bulletin (EIB-171), April.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2019. “Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups, Indicator 23: Postsecondary Graduation Rates.” Report, February.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2021. “Condition of Education: Public High School Graduation Rates.” Report, May.

Peterson, Dana M. and Catherine L. Mann. 2020. “Closing the Racial Inequality Gaps: The Economic Cost of Black Inequality in the U.S.” Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions Report, Citigroup, September.

Rolnick, Arthur J., and Rob Grunewald. 2003. “Early Childhood Development: Economic Development with a High Public Return.”Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis The Region, March 1.

Romer, Paul M. 1990. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy 98(5), pp. S71–S102.

Romer, Paul M. 1994. “The Origins of Endogenous Growth.”Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1), pp. 3-22.

Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P., Yuan, X., Nathan, A., and Hwang, Y. A. 2017. ”A National View of Student Attainment Rates by Race and Ethnicity – Fall 2010 Cohort” National Student Clearinghouse Research Center Signature Report 12b, April.

Shrider, Emily A., Melissa Kollar, Frances Chen, and Jessica Semega. 2021. “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports P60-273. U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC, September.

Truehaft, Sarah, Justin Scoggins, and Jennifer Tran. 2014. “The Equity Solution: Racial Inclusion Is Key to Growing a Strong New Economy.” PolicyLink/PERE Research brief. October 22.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. “Historical Poverty” Table 3: Poverty Status of People by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin – 1959 to 2020. August 19.

Williams, Jhacova, and Valerie Wilson. 2019. “Black Workers Endure Persistent Racial Disparities in Employment Outcomes.” Report, Economic Policy Institute. August 27.

Biden’s nominees would bring diversity to the Fed—if they’re confirmed

President Biden has announced his roster to fill key vacancies on the Federal Reserve’s 7-seat Board of Governors. If confirmed by the Senate, Biden’s nominees would advance his economic agenda at the central bank. They would diversify the ranks of economic policymakers and likely tighten supervision of Wall Street.

Sarah A. Binder

Senior Fellow – Governance Studies



Mark Spindel

Chief Investment Officer, Potomac River Capital LLC

These nominations follow in the wake of Biden’s decisions late last year to reappoint Jerome Powell to a second term as Fed chair and to elevate Lael Brainard as second in command. Powell and Brainard already serve as confirmed governors, but the Senate will also need to approve their four-year leadership posts. If the Senate confirms all five, Biden’s Fed appointees would reverse the heavy GOP-tilt of the Board engineered by the Trump administration.  
Here’s what you need to know.
Diversity counts
Biden has nominated two Black economists, Michigan State’s Lisa Cook and Davidson College’s Phillip Jefferson, to seats on the Board. He has also named former Fed governor and Treasury official, Sarah Bloom Raskin, as the Fed’s vice chair of supervision, a position Congress created in the wake of the global financial crisis as the Fed’s top banking cop.
These appointments help to diversify the Fed’s almost exclusively white ranks. Since Congress revamped the Federal Reserve Act in 1935, creating the 7-seat Board of Governors, 82 people have served on the Board. Just three of them were Black men, and ten of them were white women. And while Biden’s nominations augment the Fed’s racial diversity, confirming Cook, Brainard, and Raskin would expand the number of women governors by just one, since both Raskin and Brainard already have Board service under their belts. Notably though, this would be the first Board with a majority (four) of seven seats filled by women governors.
Rough waters ahead?
Observers expect a broad swath of Senate Republicans to vote to confirm Powell, a Republican, to a second term as chair. However, it remains to be seen how many, if any, Republicans will vote to confirm the other four nominees. Of course, Senate Democrats—if they stick together—can confirm all four without any GOP support, since Democrats banned nomination filibusters back in 2013.
Like most Congressional decisions, Fed confirmation votes are more contentious today than they were even 15 years ago, before the global financial crisis. The figure below shows shrinking Senate support on final confirmation votes for Fed nominations since the Reagan administration. Of those nominees considered on the Senate floor between 1982 and 2011, only one, Alice Rivlin, received less than 94% of the vote. The most dramatic contests came in 2020: The GOP-led Senate rejected Trump’s nominee, Judy Shelton, by a vote of 47-50, and just barely confirmed another Trump nominee, Christopher Waller. Four other Trump picks never even made it to a floor vote.

Nor can Biden count on filling the Board swiftly. Prior to the financial crisis, nominees waited about three months on average for confirmation. After the crisis, the wait time ballooned closer to eight months. The Senate took nearly ten months to confirm Waller, a record delay for the contemporary Senate’s handling of Fed nominees. Even with Democrats in control this year, Republicans have found ways to slow down the Senate.
Beware partisan crosshairs
Decades of rising partisanship are seeping into senators’ views of the Fed, often turning otherwise low profile Board nominations into politically charged votes. At the same time, public attention to the Fed has grown with its expanding imprint on the economy.   
The central bank has played an outsized role in stemming the economic damage caused by the global financial crisis in 2007-08 and the global Coronavirus pandemic in 2020-21. And with interest rates near zero, central bankers need to use more creative and often contentious tools to manage the US economy. Critics from both sides of the partisan aisle blame the Fed for either doing too much—or too little—to stem an array of old and new problems.
Add in rising expectations that the Fed will hike interest rates early this year to combat inflation and a hot economy, these nominees will face questions at the core of central banking—how fast and how soon to take away the punchbowl. Raising the price of money is never easy, but this Board could find tightening especially difficult given the addition of Biden’s governors committed to the Fed’s goal of a stronger and more racially inclusive labor market. 
The parties also disagree about whether the Fed can or should do more to combat climate change, especially in light of Congress’s own tentative steps. Democrats want the Fed to use its supervisory powers to force banks to address climate risk in their lending decisions; Republicans think such policies fall outside the Fed’s mandate. Partisans also contest whether the Fed should do more to redress racial economic inequities.
Presidents use appointments to advance their agendas. The Fed is no exception, despite the myth that central banks like the Fed are “independent.” But given the often partisan Senate confirmation process, Democrats will likely need to hang together to get Biden’s picks over the finish line.

Related Content

The six government reforms we need in 2021

Paul C. Light
Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Can the Fed stay independent in a polarized era?

Philip A. Wallach
Friday, April 1, 2016

Amid polarization, bipartisan oversight still exists in Congress

Naomi Maehr and Molly E. Reynolds
Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Read More »