Question

Roemer’s approach to equality of opportunity is based on characteristics, while the mobility approach is based on how incomes or social status differ across generations. Do you think that these approaches are at odds with each other, or are they complementary? Explain your position. Your explanation should include some details of what the approaches measure and how they do so.

Answer 1

Roemer's (1993) influential contribution aimed primarily at reinvigorating the egalitarian project by offering a version of egalitarianism aimed primarily at reducing perceived inequalities in Western liberal societies as the most unfair. Which were related to caste, gender. Family or ethnicity. Romer's favourite metaphor is "levelling the playing field" to convey the main message of the egalitarian occasion. He proposes an optimal tax model in which the social planner's assessment function incorporates inequalities due to hereditary circumstances.

Brunori et al. (2013) suggested that the measures of opportunity inequality are combined with other important variables, such as per capita production, general income inequality, and measures of intergenerational mobility/ SOCIAL MOBILITY. They report a non-linear relationship between opportunity inequality and level of development, measured by a logarithm of per capita income levels. In fact, the association appears to have an inverted U shape, much like the "Kuznets curve", which was once the assumption of a relationship between income inequality and "level of development". Since in the between-types approach, the former is measured as a component of the latter, there is a mechanistic aspect to the multilevel relationship, but apparently there is no mechanistic reason to expect correlation of the level of income inequality and inequality of opportunity.

yes, these to pproache sare somehow complementary as theese two approaches combined gave tye actual situation analysis of teh inequality from originataion points based on the caste, gender and other varibales leads the the restriction or no acess to the education and leads to the final inequality in terms of low income and resource distribution and create again inequality in the economy between the individuals.