Whether or not there is discrimination in the mortgage lending market is one of the most extensively debated issues in the civil rights arena. Because many early studies were flawed and the results misinterpreted on both sides of the debate, there is little agreement as to the next essential steps in either research or enforcement. This comprehensive volume seeks to clarify the debate by including rigorous review of fair lending research, applied projects, and enforcement activities to date, as well as recommendations for research needed to resolve unanswered questions. The intent of the authors is to help the housing industry, regulators, advocates, and the research community to better understand the issue of discrimination in an important area of American life -- the right to take out a mortgage to buy a home based on one's credit worthiness, not on one's race or ethnic group.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Human Development (HUD) presents the report "What We Know About Mortgage Lending Discrimination in America." The report outlines how discrimination can affect access to mortgage capital for minorities.

Mortgage lenders in the US, Stuart contends, are embedded in and shape a social context that can best be understood in terms of rules, networks and the production of space. This history of lenders' risk criteria reveals that they were synthesized from rules of thumb and untested theories.

An analysis of current findings on mortgage-lending discrimination and suggestions for new procedures to improve its detection. In 2000, homeownership in the United States stood at an all-time high of 67.4 percent, but the homeownership rate was more than 50 percent higher for non-Hispanic whites than for blacks or Hispanics. Homeownership is the most common method for wealth accumulation and is viewed as critical for access to the most desirable communities and most comprehensive public services. Homeownership and mortgage lending are linked, of course, as the vast majority of home purchases are made with the help of a mortgage loan. Barriers to obtaining a mortgage represent obstacles to attaining the American dream of owning one's own home. These barriers take on added urgency when they are related to race or ethnicity. In this book Stephen Ross and John Yinger discuss what has been learned about mortgage-lending discrimination in recent years. They re-analyze existing loan-approval and loan-performance data and devise new tests for detecting discrimination in contemporary mortgage markets. They provide an in-depth review of the 1996 Boston Fed Study and its critics, along with new evidence that the minority-white loan-approval disparities in the Boston data represent discrimination, not variation in underwriting standards that can be justified on business grounds. Their analysis also reveals several major weaknesses in the current fair-lending enforcement system, namely, that it entirely overlooks one of the two main types of discrimination (disparate impact), misses many cases of the other main type (disparate treatment), and insulates some discriminating lenders from investigation. Ross and Yinger devise new procedures to overcome these weaknesses and show how the procedures can also be applied to discrimination in loan-pricing and credit-scoring.

First published in 1997, this volume features a wealth of contributions discussing mortgage lending discrimination and the role of the FHA, fair lending enforcement and the Decatur case, along with the future of mortgage discrimination research. This key civil rights debate in the wake of the Fair Housing Act 25 years prior is evaluated and clarified through rigorous review of fair lending research, applied projects and enforcement activities to date. It argues forcefully that the right to take out a mortgage to buy a home should be conditioned only upon one’s credit worthiness and not on one’s race or ethnic group.

In this provocative book, economist Jonathan Rothwell draws on the latest empirical evidence from across the social sciences to demonstrate how rich democracies have allowed racial politics and the interests of those at the top to subordinate justice. He looks at the rise of nationalism in Europe and the United States, revealing how this trend overlaps with racial prejudice and is related to mounting frustration with a political status quo that thrives on income inequality and inefficient markets. But economic differences are by no means inevitable. Differences in group status by race and ethnicity are dynamic and have reversed themselves across continents and within countries. Inequalities persist between races in the United States because Black Americans are denied equal access to markets and public services. Meanwhile, elite professional associations carve out privileged market status for their members, leading to compensation in excess of their skills.