Education is also an important determinant of the desire for a fairer distribution of income. Broadly we observe that those with the ability, and privilege, to access a university level education are significantly less likely to be in favour of incomeequality. This is a contentious issue at present in the UK. Broadly, one section of society wants students to pay for their education as they reap the private returns in the form of higher wage incomes in the future, nicer jobs etc. The opposing argument centres around the fact that even though society in general pays for their education now, we all reap the benefits in terms of higher future taxes, and a more productive workforce with all the associated benefits. This assumes social returns are high.
V. EMPIRICAL RESULTS
The ordered probit models are relevant in such an analysis insofar as they help analyze the ranking information of the scaled dependent variable. However, as in the ordered probit estimation, the equation has a nonlinear form, only the sign of the coefficient can be directly interpreted and not its size. Calculating the marginal effects is therefore a method to find the quantitative effect a variable has on individuals’ preferences towards incomeequality. The marginal effect indicates the change in the share of citizens (or the probability of) belonging to a specific level, when the independent variable increases by one unit. Only the marginal effects for the highest preference towards equality are presented. To check the robustness of the results, in weighted least squares models are presented using preferences towards incomeequality as a cardinal variable. Furthermore, it should be noticed that answers as “don’t know” and missing values have been eliminated in all estimations. Weighted estimations have been considered to correct the sample and thus to get a reflection of the national distribution. For the least squares estimations we also
Socioeconomic inequality can be defined as the unequal distribution of social or economic resources or opportunities between individuals or groups. Inequalities exist along many economic and social dimensions in society. For example, we could identify inequalities in economic/material wellbeing such as income, consumption or wealth, or in terms of social issues, such as health, education or power. Much work has focussed on inequality of outcomes, such as income earned or life expectancy. However it is also important to consider inequalities of opportunities and life chances, which may help us to understand the processes behind differences in outcomes and develop policy responses (McKay, 2002). Inequality can refer to differences between individuals, or between a wide range of groupings of people, including households or families, age groups or ethnic groups, communities or schools, or geographical areas or countries. Finally, we can think about inequalities in different timeframes. Measures of inequality tend to be based on data that were collected at one point in time. However, some aspects of people’s living conditions, such as income, tend to vary over time (within a year and over the lifecourse), and longer timeframes can be useful (McKay, 2002).
Table 8 gives numerical information on the counterfactual income distributions, showing estimated income levels at the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of income; the relative contribution of each counterfactual to the total income change that was recorded at each percentile; and whether the estimated income change component is statistically significant at that point in the income distribution. The effects of age distribution and educational level are basically confined to the upper half of the income distribution. Employment status, on the other hand, has its largest impact on the position of the 10th percentile, and a rather smaller impact on the position of the 90th percentile. The effect of the combined model, which includes both demographic and labour market variables, is more evenly distributed across the income spectrum. The combined model accounts for an estimated 62% of the actual total change in mean incomes; nearly all of the change in the 10th percentile, and about two-thirds of the change in the 90th percentile.
This difference figures prominently in the current discussion about slimming of the welfare state. Opponents foresee that cuts on welfare-expenditures will inevitably create new cleverages, even in extended welfare-states. They claim that 'poverty' is coming back in affluent society and warn for a growing split ('two-third society', 'new underclass'). On the other hand advocates of a slimmer welfare-state claim that cut backs are necessary to maintain a basic social safety-net, which they see as more crucial for social-equality in the long run. They further object that 'new' poverty is not as bad as 'real' poverty used to be, and less permanent a matter to create a new underclass.
In the economics and social sciences literature, there are numerous discussions about equality, justice, and government actions. The main point is that meeting equality in a certain area may lead to inequality in other areas (Dworkin, 2000). For example, ideal incomeequality may require the inequality of welfare, resources, and opportunity. Because people with different levels of comfort, may experience different tastes, may have different preferences, and may benefit differently from resources and opportunity. In the meantime, some people believe in the necessity of equality of income and a number of people believe in the equality of opportunity. Many people got involved in the discussion after John Rawls’s publication of the “Theory of justice”. Amartya Sen (1980) believes that individual capabilities should be considered as a measure of welfare. On the other hand, some people like Arneson (1989), Cohen (1989), and Roemer (1993) are considered as pioneers of the theory of equality of opportunity. Other people like Dworkin believe in equality of resources. 1
Employment equality is an issue of continued importance in Ireland and internationally. In the context of increasing diversity, there is now a significant body of evidence of discrimination and inequality in the Irish labour market on the grounds of gender, family status, age, nationality/ethnicity and disability (see Bond et al., 2010). While state policies are extremely important in promoting equal opportunities and access to the labour market, the effectiveness of such policies can be influenced by strategies and culture at the workplace level. Employees experience state-level employment regulation and protection via their employer. Moreover, while state policies set a floor, organisation-level policies can exceed statutory provision, for example in the provision of flexible, family-friendly working arrangements and promoting best practice in diversity management. This report will build on the 2005 Equality at Work? study by O’Connell and Russell and on the main report of the National Centre for Partnership and Performance and the Economic and Social Research Institute’s National Workplace Surveys 2009 – employee survey (O’Connell et al., 2010a). Reduced inequality can have economic as well as social benefits. Debates have shifted from the moral and social justice arguments for equality in employment to an emphasis on economic arguments and business self-interest (Riley et al., 2008; Forum on the Workplace of the Future, 2005; Monks, 2007). Many authors have noted how discrimination can incur costs for an employer and is inefficient (Becker, 1971; Darity and Mason, 1998). If discrimination hinders optimal matching in the labour market for example, productivity reduction and profit loss will occur. Thus, employment equality is beneficial for individuals to achieve their full potential, for the economy to utilise the skills and productivity of the workforce efficiently and for society to increase social cohesion. Similarly for flexibility, business case arguments are that flexible working arrangements can increase employee well-being, improve productivity, reduce staff turnover and allow recruitment from a wider pool of applicants.
Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 (RRAA) and procurement To comply with their duty under the amended Race Relations Act, all public authorities must take race equality into account when procuring goods, works, or services from external providers. Public authorities must build relevant race equality considerations into the procurement process to ensure that all of their functions meet the requirements of the Race Relations Act, regardless of who is carrying them out.
In 1951, President Truman created a committee to oversee compliance with EO 8802, and in 1953, President Eisenhower furthered compliance efforts by creating a presidential committee that subsequently restructured how the government conducted compliance and oversight work. 22 The next EO, 10925, was issued by President Kennedy in 1961. EO 10925 required government contractors to take “affirmative action” to ensure applicants and workers were not discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin and gave federal contracting agencies the authority to debar or sanction non-compliance contractors. 23 Thus, Kennedy became the first President to use the term “affirmative action” in the context of ensuring racial equality and redressing past harms. 24
To be able to draft appropriate strategies and measures aimed at securing women and men equal opportunities to participate in the employment system, it takes a differentiated analysis of the underlying causes, identifying also existing barriers and negative inter- actions. The study ‘Women’s biographical patterns and pension income prospects’, commis- sioned by the BMFSFJ and run by TNS Infratest Social Research, focuses on female (non-) employment trajectories and – based on the data from the study ‘Old Age Pension Provi- sions in Germany’ (‘Altersvorsorge in Deutschland’; AVID) – identifies the rates and struc- tures of family-related career breaks of (German) women of birth cohorts 1942 to 1961 between the ages of 15 and 65 years. It describes patterns of withdrawal from and re-entry to the labour market typical of women with child-raising and/or care-giving periods and provides a differentiated analysis of the interaction between family-related employment breaks and personal pension entitlements. In this summary the key results of the study (chapter 2) and the conclusions for the field of equality policy are presented (chapter 3), completed by a short description of the AVID data and the statistical procedures used for the analyses (chapter 4).
One could reasonably ask: what happens when all (or most) people reach the same position? Undoubtedly, social growth stops. Hirsch (1999:53) claims that if there is a shortfall in performance on the positional market, hence if social growth stops, it is “not because performance gets worse but because the demands on performance become greater”. So how can social growth be kept? The best way of ensuring social growth, according to Hirsch (1999:31), is by constantly increasing or changing the obstacles and therefore generating incentives. For instance, when most people in one society are qualified to run for a mayor, extra 5 years of specific experience should be required (increasing the obstacles); when all graduates are eligible for a certain type of job, a foreign language should be required (changing the obstacles), and so on. To put it simply, Hirsch argues that ensuring social growth means keeping the positional competition going. There cannot be any intensive competition, however, if all people have the same position. Growth and equality are, therefore, mutually exclusive (Hirsch, 1999:32). To paraphrase, the only way of ensuring social growth is by ensuring positional inequality.
Now, how to select in a precise way the factors which constitute external opportunities and those which are individual responsible choices? As it is evi- dent, the central theoretical point, and consequently the main point of divergence among competing theories, is to decide where to draw the line. The main diver- gence concerns the status of individual preferences. Are they within or beyond the individual responsibility? Dworkin argues that justice requires equality of resources, and that preferences are irrelevant, in the sense that they are within the individual responsibility; his favourite examples involve the presence of ex- pensive tastes. Whereas in Cohen and Arneson 's view the relevant cut is not between resources on the one hand and preferences on the other, but between factors within and outside the individual control. Hence, one has to consider the process whereby individual preferences are generated and, in particular, the presence of adaptive or endogenous preferences: individual tastes themselves can be partly determined by the external environment. An exhaustive discussion of the various positions within the opportunity egalitarian theories is surely beyond the object of this work.
The logic of equalities with Uninterpreted Functions is used in the formal veriﬁcation community mainly for proofs of equivalence: provingthat two versions of a hardware design are the same, or that input and output of a compiler are semantically equivalent are two prominent examples of such proofs. We introduce a new decision procedure for this logic that generalizes two leading decision procedures that were published in the last few years: the Positive Equality approach suggested by Bryant et al. [Exploitingpositive equality in a logic of equality with uninterpreted functions, in: Proc. 11th Intl. Con- ference on Computer Aided Veriﬁcation (CAV’99), 1999], and the Range-Allocation algorithm suggested by Pnueli et al. [The small model property: how small can it be? Information and Computation 178 (1) (2002) 279–293]. Both of these methods reduce this logic to pure Equality Logic (without Uninterpreted Functions), and then, due to the small model property that such formulas have, ﬁnd a small domain to each variable that is sufﬁciently large to maintain the satisﬁability of the formula. The state-space spanned by these domains is then traversed with a BDD-based engine. The Positive Equality approach identiﬁes terms that have a certain characteristic in the original formula (before the reduction to pure Equality Logic), and replaces them with unique constants. The Range-Allocation algorithm analyzes the structure of the formula after the reduction to equality logic with a graph-based procedure to allocate a small set of values to each variable. The former, therefore, has an advantage when a large subset of the terms can be replaced with constants, and disadvantage in the other cases. In this paper we es- sentially merge the two methods, while improving both with a more careful analysis of the formula’s
Clearly, the procreated child has the same equality rights as others, and so the costs of compensating her for any equality disadvantages (at least if severe enough) should be born either by the procreators or by others (and not by her). The question is whether it must be born by the procreators. A plausible conception of the rights and duties of equality will, I claim, answer affirmatively. For, without such a duty, individuals would be free (under certain conditions) to procreate massive numbers of offspring (e.g., millions through cloning) who have lives barely worth living and significantly below average in life prospects. Given that such offspring have equality rights, this would lead to the impoverishment of all (since equality would require transferring resources to these poorly off individuals). Given the gross implausibility of the view that agents are permitted to do this, it seems clear that agents have a duty to cover the equality costs of their procreative activities. 19