Academic literature on the topic 'Equality of opportunity'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Equality of opportunity.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Equality of opportunity"
Ooghe, Erwin, Erik Schokkaert, and Dirk Van de gaer. "Equality of Opportunity versus Equality of Opportunity Sets." Social Choice and Welfare 28, no. 2 (May 31, 2006): 209–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00355-006-0165-4.
Full textBennett, Kim. "Equality and opportunity." Nursing Standard 4, no. 31 (April 25, 1990): 59. http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/ns.4.31.59.s51.
Full textBarrett, Richard. "Equality of Opportunity." Economic Journal 112, no. 480 (June 1, 2002): F383—F384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.t01-15-00050.
Full textKampe, Cornelius. "Equality of Opportunity." Social Philosophy Today 1 (1988): 113–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/socphiltoday1988130.
Full textYoung, Robert. "EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 70, no. 3 (September 1989): 261–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1989.tb00382.x.
Full textSreenivasan, Gopal. "Equality, opportunity, ambiguity." Politics, Philosophy & Economics 13, no. 1 (July 22, 2013): 82–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470594x13496071.
Full textRichards, Janet Radcliffe. "Equality of Opportunity." Ratio 10, no. 3 (December 1997): 253–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9329.00044.
Full textHild, Matthias, and Alex Voorhoeve. "EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND OPPORTUNITY DOMINANCE." Economics and Philosophy 20, no. 1 (April 2004): 117–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266267104001282.
Full textKodelja, Zdenko. "Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome." Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal 6, no. 2 (June 30, 2016): 9–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.85.
Full textRoemer, John E. "Defending Equality of Opportunity." Monist 86, no. 2 (2003): 261–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/monist200386210.
Full textDissertations / Theses on the topic "Equality of opportunity"
Cavanagh, Matthew. "Equality and opportunity." Thesis, University of Oxford, 1999. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.324550.
Full textCousin, Glynis. "Theorising equality of opportunity." Thesis, University of Warwick, 1995. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/4330/.
Full textSapata, Christelle. "Essays on Equality of Opportunity." Doctoral thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/107956.
Full textThe theory of equality of opportunity leads to legitimate some inequalities: inequalities due to factors for which the individual can be held responsible are fair. On the contrary, when inequalities are due to factors that are beyond individual's responsibility, these inequalities are unfair and should be removed. Even though a consensus emerges about the cut between fair and unfair inequalities, distinct measurement strategies have emerged and may lead to distinct conclusions. In this thesis, we study three aspects concerning the measurement of equality of opportunity to assess the impact of the techniques used on the conclusions about unfair inequalities. To measure inequality of opportunity, we can (1) measure the impact of one or several non-responsibility factors on individuals' outcomes, (2) account or not for the indirect impact of non-responsibility factors on responsibility factors and (3) move the cut that separates both types of factors. The first chapter investigates to which extent the magnitude of inequality of opportunity is sensitive to the change in one of these three decisions. We perform the analysis for Spain and find that the magnitude of ex-ante inequality of opportunity is sensitive to the inclusion of several non-responsibility factors. Family background is found to explain inequalities in income, but other non-responsibility variables such as country of birth are also found to be important determinants of inequalities. The indirect effect of non-responsibility factors is found to be of main importance as it explains around half the overall inequality of opportunity. Finally, the cut between responsibility and non-responsibility factors is not found to be of main impact as the variables that are obviously beyond individuals' responsibility are the ones that impact the most on inequality. The second chapter addresses two questions: Is effort equally rewarded across regions of France and is ex-post inequality of opportunity distributed in the same way as income? To this end, we estimate a wage equation as a function of circumstance and effort variables. We calculate the fair income which is the income that depends on effort only and we take the distance between the actual earnings and the fair income to obtain a measure of ex-post inequality of opportunity. We exhibit the presence of inequality of opportunity in all the regions of France and the way responsibility factors are rewarded differ across regions. On the other hand, the rankings of the regions in terms of equality of opportunity and inequality in income change slightly, which is consistent with other studies on the correlation between income inequality and inequality of opportunity. In the third chapter, we assume individuals have heterogeneous preferences on consumption and leisure. In this case, the criteria of equality of opportunity have to be adapted as proposed by Fleurbaey and Maniquet. Our aim is to propose a model to apply these criteria and make them comparable with cardinal criteria. To this end, we start from a model that identifies groups' preferences and we make use of information on individuals' choices to approximate individuals' preferences. We also propose two ways of cardinalizing our measure such as to compare our results with two cardinal criteria. We show very little matching among the criteria. The target of redistribution policy changes as we move from the egalitarian equivalence criterion to the conditional equality criterion. Then, we find strong similarities between Van de gaer's criterion and the conditional equality criterion. Roemer's criterion appears to give very distinct conclusions with respect to the other three criteria. To conclude, the difference in the results given by each criterion shows that the strategies of measurement are at least as important as the criterion used.
Voorhoeve, Alexander Edmund. "Equal opportunity, equality, and responsibility." Thesis, University College London (University of London), 2006. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1446749/.
Full textPIGNATARO, GIUSEPPE. "Essays on Equality of opportunity." Doctoral thesis, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/10280/363.
Full textThe economic literature on equality of opportunity suggests non-welfarist foundations of social choice introducing the concepts of freedoms and liberties of individuals in the assessment of social welfare. The opportunity egalitarian principle does not focus on equality of outcomes but essentially on equality of means to realize those outcomes, i.e., it places some responsibilities on individuals to decide how much effort to pay in order to exploit the opportunity offered to them. This concept refers to be a part of conventional wisdom and has a long tradition and wide acceptance. On these grounds chapter 1 is devoted to a review of the most recent research on equality of opportunity. Some economists and political philosophers have argued that, in examining distributional questions, instead of focusing on differences in observed incomes or current levels of welfare, it is more appropriate to focus on the choice or opportunity sets that individuals face. Chapter 2 focus on the measurement of the degree of equality of opportunity based on alternative decompositions of the Atkinson index of equality according to welfare theory approach. In chapter 3 we address a measurement in health using data from the British Household Panel Survey (1996-2005). Our results suggest a great incidence of the direct effect of the individual behaviors in terms of lifestyles reducing the indirect contribution of social background. Public health programs are more likely to produce results if targeted on individual responsibility. A different point at issue is tackled in chapter 4 where we introduce the relationship between equality of opportunity and efficiency in the credit market. We show that richer individuals participate more in the credit market even when relatively more averse to effort violating the equality of opportunity principle. Moreover, we find that marginal richer borrowers exert less effort than poorer ones in equilibrium. Empirical evidence in Italy points to a limited impact of policy measures aimed at increasing credit opportunities without targeting accurately the beneficiaries.
PIGNATARO, GIUSEPPE. "Essays on Equality of opportunity." Doctoral thesis, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/10280/363.
Full textThe economic literature on equality of opportunity suggests non-welfarist foundations of social choice introducing the concepts of freedoms and liberties of individuals in the assessment of social welfare. The opportunity egalitarian principle does not focus on equality of outcomes but essentially on equality of means to realize those outcomes, i.e., it places some responsibilities on individuals to decide how much effort to pay in order to exploit the opportunity offered to them. This concept refers to be a part of conventional wisdom and has a long tradition and wide acceptance. On these grounds chapter 1 is devoted to a review of the most recent research on equality of opportunity. Some economists and political philosophers have argued that, in examining distributional questions, instead of focusing on differences in observed incomes or current levels of welfare, it is more appropriate to focus on the choice or opportunity sets that individuals face. Chapter 2 focus on the measurement of the degree of equality of opportunity based on alternative decompositions of the Atkinson index of equality according to welfare theory approach. In chapter 3 we address a measurement in health using data from the British Household Panel Survey (1996-2005). Our results suggest a great incidence of the direct effect of the individual behaviors in terms of lifestyles reducing the indirect contribution of social background. Public health programs are more likely to produce results if targeted on individual responsibility. A different point at issue is tackled in chapter 4 where we introduce the relationship between equality of opportunity and efficiency in the credit market. We show that richer individuals participate more in the credit market even when relatively more averse to effort violating the equality of opportunity principle. Moreover, we find that marginal richer borrowers exert less effort than poorer ones in equilibrium. Empirical evidence in Italy points to a limited impact of policy measures aimed at increasing credit opportunities without targeting accurately the beneficiaries.
Nilsson, William. "Equality of opportunity, heterogeneity and poverty." Doctoral thesis, Umeå : Umeå University, 2005. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-518.
Full textLazenby, Hugh T. C. "A conception of equality of opportunity." Thesis, University of Oxford, 2011. http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:9aa71505-3263-429d-bbb7-8f5bd5e06625.
Full textSalas, Gonzalo. "Essays on equality of opportunity and public policy." Doctoral thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2016. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/400568.
Full textThis thesis is structured around the notion of equal opportunities, a concept first proposed by Arneson (1989), whose philosophical foundations are deeply influenced by the proposals of Rawls (1971). From this perspective there is no justification for the existence of differentiating circumstances arising from luck or natural endowment, while everything which is under the control of the person is the responsibility of the individual and society should not concern itself with establishing compensatory mechanisms. In this sense, Roemer (1998) notes that public policy should be responsible for leveling the playing field by equaling the opportunities and starting conditions of the people in order to be able to access an advantage. In the different chapters of this thesis I aim to contribute to different areas of this field by providing empirical evidence for the case of Uruguay. I focus on the link between equality of opportunities and public policy. The public policies that are analyzed put a focus on education, explicitly in some cases and indirectly in others. I consider an income transfer program, the Plan de Atención Nacional a la Emergencia Social (PANES), and a policy oriented to early childhood based on increasing places in public schools. In the literature reviewed the studies that casually link targeted public policies with inequality of opportunities are scarce (Ham, 2010; Van der gaer, 2011), with a greater number of studies focusing on analyzing the impact of policies oriented to early childhood (for example, Baker et al, 2008; Urzúa & Veramendi, 2011; Conti & Heckman, 2012; Felfe & Lalive, 2014). In the latter case there is less emphasis on the effects on equality of opportunities, so it is not possible to attribute responsibility to the children for their performance. However, in Andreoli, Havnes & Lefranc (2014) an effort was made to link the literature based on equality of opportunities and the expansion of public schools aimed at early childhood. The remaining chapter focuses on the study of preferences for redistributive policies considering different normative approaches that have been used to measure equality of opportunity. There are also several papers that have attempted to understand the role played by the perceptions of fairness of individuals in the aforementioned preferences (Fong, 2001; Alesina and Angeletos, 2005; Alesina and Giuliano, 2009). I attempt to link these two areas, which have a string subjective element, with greater precision. Specifically, I study the extent to which preferences for redistribution may be determined by heterogeneous individual perceptions about inequality of opportunity. Particular emphasis is placed on the theoretical arguments underlying the idea that perceptions of fairness influence the utility of individuals, where they see their preferences for redistribution reflected. Unlike the chapters which precede it, and which focus on explanations based on the altruism of people, in this chapter the argument shifts towards the reciprocity generated by the interaction among individuals. This last element associates the role played by the sense of fairness with the identity of the people (Akerlof and Kranton, 2010), and is therefore formed from the interaction with the peer group.
Short, Myriah J. "Equality of Opportunity: Equal Access to Higher Education." Ohio : Ohio University, 2009. http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?ohiou1229624814.
Full textBooks on the topic "Equality of opportunity"
Equality of opportunity. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Find full textRoemer, John E. Equality of opportunity. Cambridge: Harvard university press, 1998.
Find full textBusiness & Technology Education Council. Equality of opportunity. London: BTEC, 1992.
Find full textFrankel, Paul Ellen, and Bowling Green State University. Social Philosophy and Policy Center., eds. Equal opportunity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell for the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University, 1987.
Find full textCousin, Glynis. Theorising equality of opportunity. [s.l.]: typescript, 1995.
Find full textSamuel, Coleman James. Equality of educational opportunity. Salem, N.H: Ayer Co., 1988.
Find full textDickson, Peter. Towards equality of opportunity. [Slough]: NFER, 1993.
Find full textSardoč, Mitja, ed. Handbook of Equality of Opportunity. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52269-2.
Full textBusiness and Technician Education Council. Equality of opportunity for education. London: the Council, 1986.
Find full textSchütz, Gabriela. Education policy and equality of opportunity. Bonn, Germany: IZA, 2005.
Find full textBook chapters on the topic "Equality of opportunity"
Siboni, Benedetta, and Giovanna Galizzi. "Equality of Opportunity." In Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management, 1–5. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02006-4_689-1.
Full textReisman, David. "Equality of Opportunity." In Crosland's Future, 56–107. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230376687_3.
Full textRoemer, John E. "Equality of Opportunity." In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 3840–47. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2223.
Full textRoemer, John E. "Equality of Opportunity." In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 1–8. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2223-1.
Full textHansson, Sven Ove. "Equal Opportunity." In Handbook of Equality of Opportunity, 1–24. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52269-2_2-1.
Full textArmstrong, Chris. "Global Equality of Opportunity." In Encyclopedia of Global Justice, 410–11. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_277.
Full textNavin, Mark C. "Fair Equality of Opportunity." In Encyclopedia of Global Justice, 331–32. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_9.
Full textSpring, Joel. "Equality of Educational Opportunity." In American Education, 94–126. 20th ed. Twentieth edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2021.: Routledge, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003093251-5.
Full textLægaard, Sune. "Equality of Opportunity and Religion." In Handbook of Equality of Opportunity, 1–22. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52269-2_1-1.
Full textStone, Peter. "Democracy and Equality of Opportunity." In Handbook of Equality of Opportunity, 1–15. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52269-2_3-1.
Full textConference papers on the topic "Equality of opportunity"
Liu, David, Zohair Shafi, William Fleisher, Tina Eliassi-Rad, and Scott Alfeld. "RAWLSNET: Altering Bayesian Networks to Encode Rawlsian Fair Equality of Opportunity." In AIES '21: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462618.
Full textHeidari, Hoda, Michele Loi, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Andreas Krause. "A Moral Framework for Understanding Fair ML through Economic Models of Equality of Opportunity." In FAT* '19: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287584.
Full textSuwarno, Peter. "Equality in Education and Employment for Sustainable Development of Diverse Indonesia: Enhancing Equal Opportunity, Volunteerism, and Philanthropy." In Proceedings of the 1st Non Formal Education International Conference (NFEIC 2018). Paris, France: Atlantis Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/nfeic-18.2019.1.
Full textLi, Henan. "Criminal Law Regulation of Legal Means to Defraud the National Welfare Behavior--from the Perspective of Equality of Opportunity Protection." In 2017 3rd International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering (ESSAEME 2017). Paris, France: Atlantis Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/essaeme-17.2017.244.
Full textLučić, Sonja. "JAČANjE PRINCIPA NEUTRALNOSTI INTERNETA KROZ PRAKSU SUDA PRAVDE EU." In XVII majsko savetovanje. Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Kragujevcu, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.46793/uvp21.505l.
Full textSemiz, Marina. "Komparativni osvrt na visoko obrazovanje tokom pandemije kovid-19." In Nauka, nastava, učenje u izmenjenom društvenom kontekstu. University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Education in Uzice, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.46793/nnu21.055s.
Full textAngelova-Igova, Boryana, and Ivan Slavchev. "SOME GENDER ISSUES AROUND SPORTS OFFICIALS IN THE CONTEMPORARY BULGARIAN SOCIETY." In INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS “APPLIED SPORTS SCIENCES”. Scientific Publishing House NSA Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.37393/icass2022/73.
Full textMarinelli, Melissa Jane, Linley Lord, and Sally Male. "Early career patterns, experiences, and influences: reflections from women engineers in senior roles." In SEFI 50th Annual conference of The European Society for Engineering Education. Barcelona: Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.5821/conference-9788412322262.1361.
Full textJumani, Nabi Bux, Fouzia Ajmal, Samina Malik, and Fatima Maqsood. "Online Education as a Key to Bridge Gender Digital Divide in Pakistan." In Tenth Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning. Commonwealth of Learning, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.56059/pcf10.9275.
Full textBozkaya, Gülferah. "The Role of Social Protection Expenditure in the Fight against Poverty." In International Conference on Eurasian Economies. Eurasian Economists Association, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.36880/c05.00990.
Full textReports on the topic "Equality of opportunity"
Benabou, Roland, and Efe Ok. Mobility as Progressivity: Ranking Income Processes According to Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w8431.
Full textMott, Joanna, Heather Brown, Di Kilsby, Emily Eller, and Tshering Choden. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Self-Assessment Tool. Institute of Development Studies (IDS), April 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.19088/slh.2021.016.
Full textSexton, Porter. A computer decision support system to assist in providing equality of educational opportunity. Portland State University Library, January 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.15760/etd.795.
Full textAndrews, Rodney, and Kevin Stange. Price Regulation, Price Discrimination, and Equality of Opportunity in Higher Education: Evidence from Texas. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w22901.
Full textCascio, Elizabeth, Nora Gordon, and Sarah Reber. Federal Aid and Equality of Educational Opportunity: Evidence from the Introduction of Title I in the South. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, June 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w17155.
Full textSung, Seung Yong. Reproduction of 'Equality of opportunity and human capital accumulation: Motivational effect of a nationwide scholarship in Colombia'. Social Science Reproduction Platform, April 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.48152/ssrp-5t1m-4n04.
Full textLazonick, William, Philip Moss, and Joshua Weitz. Equality Denied: Tech and African Americans. Institute for New Economic Thinking, February 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.36687/inetwp177.
Full textSmith, Mary. Equality of Educational Opportunity for Language Minority Students in Oregon: A Survey of ESL/Bilingual Education Policy in Local School Districts. Portland State University Library, January 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.15760/etd.382.
Full textOloo, Ruth, and Amber Parkes. Addressing Unpaid Care and Domestic Work for a Gender-equal and Inclusive Kenya: WE-Care policy briefing. Oxfam, April 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.21201/2021.7314.
Full textMwiine, Amon Ashaba, Josephine Ahikire, Jovah Katushabe, Harriet Pamara, and Aklam Amanya. Unravelling Backlash in the Journey of Legislating Sexual Offences in Uganda. Institute of Development Studies, January 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.19088/ids.2023.007.
Full text