EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

Equality of condition, Inequality of condition, Inequality of opportunity

There is equality of opportunity where differences in individual's wealth, status and power are not so great as to create advantage and disadvantage in the pursuit of personal achievement.

Liberal ideology and consensus theory claim that broad equality of opportunity exists in modern societies.

Equality of opportunity is a political ideal opposed to caste hierarchy though not to hierarchy as generally understood. The assumption is that there is a hierarchy of more desirable and less desirable, superior and inferior positions in a society.

In a caste society as in India where even today untouchability is practiced in every nook and corner of the country, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is fixed by birth. The child acquires the social status of his or her parents if their union is socially sanctioned. Social mobility may be possible in a caste society, but one is admitted to a different level of the hierarchy based on their initial ascriptive social status.

When equality of opportunity prevails, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is determined by competitive process, and all members of society are eligible to compete on equal terms.

Reducing inequality of condition is the central aim of huge and expensive welfare states, with not only income support for the poor, but excellent education and health care at all income levels. Britain is somewhat less serious, and the USA hasn't been serious since Roosevelt.

We cannot have equality of opportunity without equality of condition. Inequality of condition, like soft discrimination, hurts a child throughout a child's life.

Equality of opportunity is, of course, quite consistent with inequality of condition. But is not the same as two runners given an even start, and equally good tracks. Inequality of condition does not necessarily = inequality of opportunity.

Measuring opportunity - KRYMKOWSKI Daniel H.
In American political discourse, a distinction is often made between inequality of condition and inequality of opportunity. The former involves the distribution of valued rewards in society, while the latter has to do with access to these rewards. In terms of scientific work, much more progress has been made on the study of inequality of condition than on the study of inequality of opportunity. This paper proposes an approach to defining and measuring inequality of opportunity that avoids many of the problems found in previous research. In particular, my method: (1) is consistent with contemporary usage of the opportunity concept, (2) differentiates opportunity from outcome, in that opportunity is defined as the chance of achieving a goal, (3) takes into account the fact that people have different chances of developing certain goals, and (4) allows the measurement of inequality of opportunity at both the individual and group levels. The approach is illustrated utilizing occupational data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. The empirical analysis reveals less inequality of occupational opportunity than inequality of income, somewhat more inequality of occupational opportunity among men than women, and more occupational opportunity among women than men. - Mathematical Sociology in Japan and America. Conference, Honolulu, Hawai , ETATS-UNIS (23/06/2002) 2001, vol. 25.

Disquisition on Government
John C. Calhoun, 1840 - Excerpt
"Equality of citizens, in the eyes of the law, is essential to liberty in a popular government, is conceded. But to go further, and make equality of condition essential to liberty, would be to destroy both liberty and progress. The reason is, that inequality of condition, while it is a necessary consequence of liberty, is, at the same time, indispensable to progress. In order to understand why this is so, it is necessary to bear in mind, that the main spring to progress is, the desire of individuals to better their condition; and that the strongest impulse which can be given to it is, to leave individuals free to exert themselves in the manner they may deem best for that purpose, as far at least as it can be done consistently with the ends for which government is ordained,—and to secure to all the fruits of their exertions. Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity,—the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on the exertions on them would be destructive of liberty,—while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition. It is, indeed, this inequality of condition between the front and rear ranks, in the march of progress, which gives so strong an impulse to the former to maintain their position, and to the latter to press forward into their files. This gives to progress its greatest impulse. To force the front rank back to the rear, or attempt to push forward the rear into line with the front, by the interposition of the government, would put an end to the impulse, and effectually arrest the march of progress."

INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: Recent Research on Educational Attainment and Social Mobility
Richard Breen and Jan O. Jonsson
Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 31: 223-243 (Volume publication date August 2005) (doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122232)
Studies of how characteristics of the family of origin are associated with educational and labor market outcomes indicate the degree of openness of societies and have a long tradition in sociology. We review research published since 1990 into educational stratification and social (occupational or class) mobility, focusing on the importance of parental socioeconomic circumstances, and with particular emphasis on comparative studies. Large-scale data now available from many countries and several time points have led to more and better descriptions of inequality of opportunity across countries and over time. However, partly owing to problems of comparability of measurement, unambiguous conclusions about trends and ranking of countries have proven elusive. In addition, no strong evidence exists that explains intercountry differences. We conclude that the 1990s witnessed a resurgence of microlevel models, mostly of a rational choice type, that signals an increased interest in moving beyond description in stratification research. - arjournals.annualreviews.org

"This, I think, gives us two kinds of reasons to worry about inequality of condition. One is that inequality of condition undermines equality of opportunity, which is an important value. Another is that inequality of condition in part reflects previous unequal opportunities, which is unjust. Of course, you don't want to do too much to advance equality of condition, since taken to extremes that would undermine everyone's prosperity. Nor do you want to go too far in efforts at generating equal opportunities or you'll fatally undermine liberty. But you do want to do some of both. Both are important values, they're mutually re-enforcing, but neither one can be realized at the limit without undermining yet other important values." - Matthew Yglesias is a writer living in Washington, DC. - matthewyglesias.com

Bibliography

Alexander, Larry, 1992, "What Makes Wrongful Discrimination Wrong? Biases, Preferences, Stereotypes, and Proxies," University of Pennsylvania Law Review 141.
Anderson, Elizabeth, 1999, "What Is the Point of Equality?", Ethics 109.
Arneson, Richard, 1989, "Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare," Philosophical Studies 56.
Arneson, Richard, 1999, "Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity," Philosophical Studies 93
Becker, Gary S., 1971, The Economics of Discrimination, 2nd edition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Brock, Dan W., 2000, "Health Care Resource Prioritization and Cavanagh, Matt, 2002, Against Equality of Opportunity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daniels, Norman, 1978, "Merit and Meritocracy," Philosophy and Public Affairs 7.
Fishkin, James S., 1983, Justice, Equal Opportunity, and the Family, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Galston, William, 1986, "Equality of Opportunity and Liberal Theory," in Lucash, Frank S., ed., Justice and Equality Here and Now, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Miller, David, 1999, Principles of Social Justice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, chapters 7-9.
Rae, Douglas, et al, 1981, Equalities, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Risse, Mathias, 2002, "What Equality of Opportunity Could Not Be," Ethics 112, pp. 720-747.
Roemer, John, 1995, "Equality and Responsibility," Boston Review, April-May issue.
Roemer, John, 1998, Equality of Opportunity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roemer, John, 2002, "Equality of Opportunity: A Progress Report," Social Choice and Welfare 19.
Roemer, John, 2003, "Defending Equality of Opportunity," The Monist.
Schaar, John, 1967, "Equality of Opportunity, and Beyond," in Pennock, J. Roland, and Chapman, John, eds., Equality: Nomos IX, New York: Atherton Press, reprinted in Pojman, Louis P., and Westmoreland, Robert, 1997, Equality: Selected Readings, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, Amartya, 1992, Inequality Reexamined, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Temkin, Larry S., 1993, Inequality, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapter 8.
Williams, Bernard, 1962, "The Idea of Equality," in Peter Laslett and W. G. Runciman (eds.), Philosophy, Politics, and Society, Series II, London: Basil Blackwell.

E-Books