{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010775862068965518, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010775862068965518, 'mean_word_length': 5.781021897810219, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Strikebreaking or Solidarity in the Great Steel Strike of 1919: A Split Labor Market, Game-Theoretic, and QCA Analysis

Split labor market theory provides insight into the development of ethnic and racial antagonism but has failed to address interracial solidarity and has tended to ignore the role of the state. The authors modify Heckathorn's formal model of collective action to derive predictions concerning the possibility of interracial solidarity or strikebreaking given split labor market conditions. Predictions are then examined using qualitative comparative analysis for 16 northern cities that participated in the 1919 steel strike. Results show that interracial solidarity developed in cities that had strong local union organizations and nonrepressive governments, while black strikebreaking emerged in cities with higher proportions of recent black migrants and either repressive local governments or weak unions.