Empirical approaches to inequality of opportunity: principles, measures, and evidence

We put together the different conceptual issues involved in measuring inequality of opportunity, discuss how these concepts have been translated into computable measures, and point out the problems and choices researchers face when implementing these measures. Our analysis identifies and suggests several new possibilities to measure inequality of opportunity. The approaches are illustrated with a selective survey of the empirical literature on income inequality of opportunity.

An ex-post view of inequality of opportunity in France and its regions

This paper proposes an ex-post measure of inequality of opportunity in France and its regions by assessing the inequality between individuals exerting the same effort. To this end, we define a fair income that fulfils ex-post equality of opportunity requirements. Unfairness is measured by an unfair Gini based on the distance between the actual income and the fair income. Our findings reveal that the measures of ex-post inequality of opportunity largely vary across regions, and that this is due to di_erences in reward schemes and in the impact of the non responsibility factors of income. We find that most regions have actual incomes closer to fair incomes than to average income, excepted Ile de France where the actual income looks poorly related to effort variables. Finally, we find that income inequality and inequality of opportunity are positively correlated among regions.

Inequality of opportunity in educational achievement in Latin America: evidence from PISA 2006-2009

We assess inequality of opportunity in educational achievement in six Latin American countries, employing two waves of PISA data (2006 and 2009). By means of a non-parametric approach using a decomposable inequality index, GE(0), we rank countries according to their degree of inequality of opportunity. We work with alternative characterizations of types: school type (public or private), gender, parental education, and combinations of those variables. We calculate incremental contributions of each set of circumstances to inequality. We provide rankings of countries based on unconditional inequalities (using conventional indices) and on conditional inequalities (EOp indices), and the two sets of rankings do not always coincide. Inequality of opportunities range from less than 1% to up to 27%, with substantial heterogeneity according to the year, the country, the subject and the specificication of circumstances. Robustness checks based on bootstrap and the use of an alternative index confirm most of the initial results.

Inequality of opportunity in daycare and preschool services in Brazil

In this paper we measure inequality of opportunity in daycare and preschool services in Brazil. For this purpose, we construct an opportunity index that modifies the human opportunity index proposed in the literature and used in Barros et al. (2009) to measure inequality in basic opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Specifically, we construct an opportunity measure that includes not only attendance but also parental choice not to enroll children in daycare or preschool, using data from a supplementary questionnaire included in the 2006 version of Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios (PNAD). The results show that there are large differences between our opportunity index and the human opportunity index for children aged 0-3 years old and considerably smaller differences for children aged 4-6 years old, which suggests that preschool may be closer to a basic opportunity than daycare.

Inequality of educational opportunity in India: changes over time and across states

This paper documents the extent of inequality of educational opportunity in India spanning the period 1983–2004 using National Sample Surveys. We build on recent developments in the literature that have operationalized concepts of inequality of opportunity theory and construct several indices of inequality of educational opportunity for an adult sample. Kerala stands out as the least opportunity-unequal state. Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh experienced large-scale falls in the ranking of inequality of opportunities. By contrast, West Bengal and Orissa made significant progress in reducing inequality of opportunity. We also examine the links between progress toward equality of opportunity and a selection of pro-poor policies.

Literature Review: Equality of Opportunity in Relation to the DHSSPS Draft Equality Scheme

This review of the literature on equality of opportunity issues was commissioned by the Department of Public Health, Social Sevices and Public Safety.

Equality of educational opportunity employing Pisa data: taking both achievement and access into account

La medición de la desigualdad de oportunidades con las bases de PISA implican varias limitaciones: (i) la muestra sólo representa una fracción limitada de las cohortes de jóvenes de 15 años en los países en desarrollo y (ii) estas fracciones no son uniformes entre países ni entre periodos. Lo anterior genera dudas sobre la confiabilidad de estas mediciones cuando se usan para comparaciones internacionales: mayor equidad puede ser resultado de una muestra más restringida y más homogénea. A diferencia de enfoques previos basados en reconstrucción de las muestras, el enfoque del documento consiste en proveer un índice bidimensional que incluye logro y acceso como dimensiones del índice. Se utilizan varios métodos de agregación y se observan cambios considerables en los rankings de (in) equidad de oportunidades cuando solo se observa el logro y cuando se observan ambas dimensiones en las pruebas de PISA 2006/2009. Finalmente se propone una generalización del enfoque permitiendo otras dimensiones adicionales y otros pesos utilizados en la agregación.

Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome

The report on the findings of extensive empirical research on equality of educational opportunities carried out in the US on a very large sample of public schools by Coleman and his colleagues has had a major impact on education policy and has given rise to a large amount of research and various interpretations. However, as some interpreters have highlighted, even more important than the findings of the survey themselves has been Coleman’s redefinition of equality of opportunity, abandoning the then prevailing conception of equality of educational opportunities as equality of starting points and replacing it with the concept of equality of educational opportunities as equality of educational outcomes. The question is, therefore, whether equality of outcomes really is one of the two types of equality of opportunity. The purpose of the present article is to show that equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes are two different types of equality. If they are different, the interpretation that Coleman has redefined the concept of “equality of educational opportunity” turns out to be incorrect. (DIPF/Orig.)

Equality of opportunity, cultural diversity and claims for fairness

The present paper examines some of the tensions, problems and challenges associated with claims for equality of opportunity (the fairness argument). The introductory part identifies three separate forms of justification for public education, including the argument associated with equality of opportunity. Part II examines in detail two questions that reveal part of the anatomy of equality of opportunity: (1) what an opportunity is, and (2) when individuals’ opportunities are equal. This is followed by a presentation of the two basic principles of equality of opportunity: (1) the principle of non-discrimination, and (2) the “levelling the playing field” principle. The next part takes up the multiculturalist hypothesis advanced by minority groups for the accommodation and recognition of cultural diversity. This is followed by the identification of a set of claims comprising the “fairness argument”. The last section focuses on the “currency problem” associated with cultural diversity as a form of “unfair disadvantage”. Part V examines two of the major shortcomings associated with the multicultural conception of equality of opportunity, while the concluding part discusses some of the questions that must be answered by any conception of equal opportunities. (DIPF/Orig.)

Phase correction for passive radar using targets of opportunity

This paper presents a novel phase correction technique for Passive Radar which uses targets of opportunity present in the target area as references. The proposed methodology is quite simple and enables the use of low cost hardware with independent oscillators for the reference and surveillance channels which can be geographically distributed. © 2014 IEEE.

The spatial inequality of wage income in Barcelona Metropolitan Area

ABSTRACT The measure and estimation of income levels in Barcelona Metropolitan Area (BMA) goes back a long way. Using different approaches and focusing on different municipalities, there is a lot of work in the field. The majority of the literature has focused on the estimation of income levels using variables related to consumption. The empirical evidence on wage differentials has shown an important growth during 80’s and 90’s especially in United Kingdom and USA. Less is known on spatial distribution of inequality. This paper presents a new data set for analyzing spatial distribution of wage income. This data is obtained by matching Wage Structure Survey (WSS) with data from Census disaggregated by census tracts. In this way we have a unique data set with wage incomes for every census track for 36 municipalities belonging to BMA. We develop a descriptive analysis of spatial distribution, testing for spatial autocorrelation and use the family of Generalised Entropy Indices to measure inequality. Properties of the index allow us to decompose inequality into inter and intra-municipality measures. Since we have two cross-sectional data for WSS (1995-2002) we can also analyze the evolution of the inequality in this period of economic growth. Key words: spatial distribution of wages, spatial autocorrelation, inequality indices.

Which Inequality? The Inequality of Endowments Versus the Inequality of Rewards

Society often allocates valuable resources - such as prestigious positions, salaries, or marriage partners - via tournament-like institutions. In such situations, inequality affects incentives to compete and hence has a direct effect on equilibrium choices and hence material outcomes. We introduce a new distinction between inequality in initial endowments (e.g. ability, inherited wealth) and inequality of what one can obtain as rewards (e.g. prestigious positions, money). We show that these two types of inequality have opposing effects on equilibrium behavior and wellbeing. Greater inequality of rewards tends to hurt most people — both the middle class and the poor, — who are forced into greater effort. In contrast, greater inequality of endowments tends to benefit the middle class. Thus, which type of inequality is considered hugely affects the correctness of our intuitions about the implications of inequality.

The Market for "Rough Diamonds": Information, Finance and Wage Inequality

During the past four decades both between and within group wage inequality increased significantly in the US. I provide a microfounded justification for this pattern, by introducing private employer learning in a model of signaling with credit constraints. In particular, I show that when financial constraints relax, talented individuals can acquire education and leave the uneducated pool, this decreases unskilled inexperienced wages and boosts wage inequality. This explanation is consistent with US data from 1970 to 1997, indicating that the rise of the skill and the experience premium coincides with a fall in unskilled-inexperienced wages, while at the same time skilled or experienced wages do not change much. The model accounts for: (i) the increase in the skill premium despite the growing supply of skills; (ii) the understudied aspect of rising inequality related to the increase in the experience premium; (iii) the sharp growth of the skill premium for inexperienced workers and its moderate expansion for the experienced ones; (iv) the puzzling coexistence of increasing experience premium within the group of unskilled workers and its stable pattern among the skilled ones. The results hold under various robustness checks and provide some interesting policy implications about the potential conflict between inequality of opportunity and substantial economic inequality, as well as the role of minimum wage policy in determining the equilibrium wage inequality.

Delivering Equality Of Opportunity In Schools - An Action Plan for Educational Inclusion

This action plan focuses on addressing the educational needs of children and young people from disadvantaged communities, from pre-school through second-level education (3 to18 years). Its frame of reference is based on the definition of “educational disadvantage” in the Education Act (1998) as: “...the impediments to education arising from social or economic disadvantage which prevent students from deriving appropriate benefit from education in schools.” The action plan is, therefore, one element of a continuum of interventions to address disadvantage, which include second-chance education and training and access measures for adults to support increased participation by under-represented groups in further and higher education. A further element of this continuum is the ongoing development of provision for pupils with special educational needs in light of the enactment of the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act (2004) and the establishment of the National Council for Special Education.

Delivering Equality Of Opportunity In Schools - An Action Plan for Educational Inclusion - Summary

This action plan focuses on addressing the educational needs of children and young people from disadvantaged communities, from pre-school through second-level education (3 to18 years). Its frame of reference is based on the definition of “educational disadvantage” in the Education Act (1998) as: “...the impediments to education arising from social or economic disadvantage which prevent students from deriving appropriate benefit from education in schools.” The action plan is, therefore, one element of a continuum of interventions to address disadvantage, which include second-chance education and training and access measures for adults to support increased participation by under-represented groups in further and higher education. A further element of this continuum is the ongoing development of provision for pupils with special educational needs in light of the enactment of the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act (2004) and the establishment of the National Council for Special Education.