Search results

Purpose – The aim of this chapter is to analyze the measurement error due to partial observability of circumstances, given the current methodologies used to capture the inequality of opportunity.

Methodology – We limit our analysis to the case in which IOp is measured by using an inequality index and evaluated according to the ex ante and the ex post approaches proposed by Checchi and Peragine (2010). Both approaches rely on the use of two hypothetical distributions obtained by standardizing and smoothing processes so that in one of them all inequalities are due to effort and in the other they are all caused by individuals circumstances. The impact of a change in the observability of circumstances has been analyzed directly in the first case (ex ante approach) and indirectly in the second (ex post approach). Hence, in the latter results are obtained by using a decomposable inequality index, while in the first case the result holds for any Lorenz consistent inequality index.

Findings – We have shown that, in both cases, we can only identify a lower bound of opportunity inequality, and the results obtained when measuring IOp with the two approaches are biased in the same direction.

Originality – The idea that inequality of opportunity, as it is generally measured, is only a lower bound of the real inequality of opportunity has already been hinted in Peragine (2004a), Fleurbaey (2008, Chap. 9), and Ferreira and Gignoux (2011). We attempt to bring this intuition to complete fruition in this chapter by providing clear and distinct demonstrations of this result for both the ex ante and the ex post approach for measuring IOp.

Purpose – Our ultimate goal is to characterize three methodological issues. First, compare the relative performance of alternative estimation methods for long time series, second, estimate the degree of correlation between effort and circumstances, and, third, decompose total inequality into inequality of opportunity and inequality of effort according to an ideal tree.

Methodology – We estimate parametrically and nonparametrically the ex-ante inequality of opportunity in the United States between 1969 and 2007. The degree of correlation between effort and circumstances is computed following the proposal in Björklund et al. (2011). In addition, we decompose total inequality based on an ideal tree with three levels of disaggregation by applying the natural decomposition of the squared coefficient of variation and the Nested Shapley value.

Findings – We find significant differences between the nonparametric and parametric approaches. In particular, our results reveal that considering cross-effects between circumstances may be relevant. Moreover, the degree of correlation between effort and circumstances which has significantly increased over the period 1969 and 2007 in the United States, explains between 5% and 20% of total IO. In addition, race is the main circumstance during the 1970s and 1980s, accounting for more than 50% of the direct IO, while parental education take the lead in the last two decades.

Originality – We modify the parametric specification by considering cross-effects between circumstances. We estimate the degree of correlation between effort and circumstances for long time series. We decompose total inequality according to a three-level hierarchical model.

The chapter suggests two methodologies to measure inequality of opportunity in health in Israel, an ex-ante and an ex-post approach. In both cases, following the strategy recently suggested by Trannoy, Tubeuf, Jusot, and Devaux (2010), the chapter starts by introducing the production function of health, taking into account circumstances (the father’s years of education, his country of birth, the religion of the individual, his or her country of birth, age and gender) as well as effort variables (the level of education of the individual, his or her occupation and a variable describing his or her smoking habits).

The chapter also suggests then a decomposition of the overall health inequality into a legitimate and an illegitimate component, using the mean logarithmic deviation as inequality index, such a breakdown being applied to both the ex-ante and the ex-post approaches to equality of opportunity.

This paper studies the cross-country differences in conventional measures of inequality of opportunity in Europe in the space of individual disposable incomes. Exploiting two recent waves of the EUSILC database reporting information on family background (2005 and 2011), we provide estimates of inequality of opportunity in about 30 European countries for two sufficiently distant data points, allowing a check of consistency for country rankings. In addition, we exploit two observations available for most of the countries to explore the relationship between many institutional dimensions and inequality of opportunity, finding evidence of negative correlation with educational expenditure (especially at the pre-primary level) and passive labour market policies.

Conventional wisdom predicts that changes in macroeconomic conditions significantly affect income inequality. In this paper, we hypothesize that the way in which macroeconomic conditions affect inequality depends on how these conditions influence the constituents of total inequality: inequality of opportunity (IO) and inequality of effort (IE). Using the PSID database for the United States (1970–2009), we first decompose total inequality into these components. Then, we specify a dynamic model that relates each inequality component to a set of macroeconomic factors. Apart from real GDP and inflation rates, the most widely used factors in the literature, we also consider outstanding consumer credits and public welfare and health care expenditures. We find that real GDP and outstanding credits have a negative and significant effect upon IO and IE, while inflation has a positive and significant effect only on IE, and welfare expenditures have a negative and significant effect only on IO.

Individuals are completely responsible for their outcomes (income, utility, health and so on) and, therefore, total inequality is due to individual responsible choices. This view has been challenged by philosophers and economists for the last three decades since the magnum opus by John Rawls (1971). These authors have argued that individuals are only responsible for their own efforts, and, therefore, people should be compensated for a variety of circumstances beyond their control. The meritocracy approach rejects the existence of circumstances and, in accordance with this, considers that total inequality is due to inequality of effort. On the contrary, the equality of opportunity approach recognizes the existence of factors that affect individuals and over which they have no control. For the former approach, the relevant equilizandum is individual freedom of access to education, positions and jobs. For the latter approach, the relevant equilizandum is the set of available opportunities to acquire those attributes required to compete for a position or job.

Adults raised in poor households tend to be more prone to live in poverty than the rest, ceteris paribus. This holds true even in the presence of observed income transmission channels such as education attainment. We identify this differential poverty risk as intergenerational transmission of economic disadvantage (ITED). This chapter contributes to the literature on cross-country differences in the intensity of ITED in the EU by explicitly testing how macro-economic/institutional features shape the phenomenon. Working on a sample of 30- to 39-year-old interviewees from the EU-SILC 2011 module on Intergenerational transmission of disadvantages, the authors find that, first, past income inequality is positively correlated with current ITED intensity; second, past efforts on inequality reduction via social protection for families with children and unemployment benefits are negatively correlated with later ITED levels; finally, educational expansion correlates with lower ITED, pointing to the relevance of public investments in education as a way to fight inequality of opportunity.

The purpose of this paper is to critically explore why a diversity agenda in favor of equal opportunities failed despite apparent organizational support and commitment to diversity.

Drawing on data from a municipal center, this study inquire into how organizational dynamics of power and hierarchy influence change efforts to alter practices of inequality. The study is positioned within critical diversity research and structured around an analysis of the researcher’s fieldwork experiences.

The analysis examines into why change efforts failed despite organizational approval of a diversity agenda, open-mindedness toward change and legitimacy in regard to diversity. Paradoxically, change efforts designed to alter the status quo were, in practice, derailed and circumvented through power dynamics reproducing organizational inequality.

A single case study in a particular type of organization constrains the generalizability but point to new directions for future research.

This study aims at sensitizing researchers and diversity practitioners alike to the organizational embeddedness of diversity initiatives. Accordingly, change efforts must necessarily address diversity in a situated perspective and as intersecting with key organizational power dynamics gaining impetus from macro discourses on diversity and difference.

Few critical diversity scholars engage with practitioners and reflect on the impact of their studies. In doing so, this paper contributes by developing diversity research, exploring the limitations and possibilities for increasing its relevance and impact.

Can an estimate of the intergenerational elasticity (IGE) be interpreted as a measure of inequality of opportunity (IOp)? If parental income is the only childhood circumstance, then the answer is yes. However, parental income is one of many potential circumstances that can shape IOp. These circumstances can influence the offspring’s income indirectly – by influencing parental income – or directly, bypassing the IGE altogether. I develop a model to decompose the interaction between childhood circumstances, parental income and offspring income. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics for the United States, I find that childhood circumstances account for 55% of the IGE for individual earnings and 53% for family income, with parental education explaining over a third of those shares. Furthermore, the IGE misses a large part of the influence of circumstances: only 45% of the influence of parental education on the offspring’s income goes through parental income (36% for earnings).

Purpose: This paper examines for the first time inequality of opportunity for income in Africa, by analyzing large-sample surveys, all providing information on individuals’ parental background, in five comparable Sub-Saharan countries: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Guinea, Madagascar, and Uganda.

Methodology/approach: We compute inequality of opportunity indexes in keeping with the main proposals in the literature, and propose a decomposition of between-country differences that distinguishes the respective impacts of intergenerational mobility between social origins and positions, of the distribution of education and occupations, and of the earnings structure.

Findings: Among our five countries, Ghana in 1988 has by far the lowest income inequality between individuals of different social origins, while Madagascar in 1993 displays the highest. Ghana in 1998, Ivory Coast in 1985–1988, Guinea in 1994, and Uganda in 1992 stand in-between. Decompositions reveal that the two former British colonies (Ghana and Uganda) share a much higher intergenerational educational and occupational mobility than the three former French colonies. Further, Ghana distinguishes itself from the four other countries, because of the combination of widespread secondary schooling, low returns to education, and low income dualism against agriculture. Nevertheless, it displays marked regional inequality insofar as being born in the Northern part of this country produces a significant restriction of income opportunities.

Originality/value of paper: By providing the first figures for five countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, this paper allows enlarging the sample of international comparisons in the study of inequality of opportunity. It also reveals some suggestive evidence regarding the long-term origin of intergenerational mobility differences, and in particular the colonial legacy of school extension and of dualism against agriculture.