Question

With references to allocation of resources, discuss "equality of opportunities" (competition/meritocracy) vs "equality of outcomes".
The idea is to understand different assumptions behind different economic policy approaches. Economic policies broadly speaking are based on one of the following two objectives:
1) Equal opportunities (principles of competition and pure meritocracy). This argues for a “procedural judgement of fairness” and the process taking place behind what the American Philosopher calls “veil of ignorance” (Property and power, Unit 5).
2) Alternative proposal argues that “one-size fits all” approach is problematic and there are specific circumstances where “equality” and “justice” are best served if we pursue outcome-based policies. Assessing inequalities of final outcomes through a “substantive judgement of fairness” (Property and power, Unit 5).
You are to discuss differences between the two approaches and explain the reasons why you would support one over another. In the second half of your assignment, you are to choose a real-life or a policy example (any country preferably Afghanistan) and critically discuss its merits and downsides.

Answer 1

Freedom and equality are foundational values that we draw upon when envisioning a better society. Equality of opportunity is a social ideal that combines concern with freedom and equality, and this social ideal provides a vision of how we ought to live together.

concept

The concept of Equality of Opportunity has been examined by philosopher Peter Westen. Westen shows that an opportunity is a three-way relationship between a person, some obstacles, and a desired goal. However, a person only has an opportunity if she has a chance of achieving that goal. One cannot have an opportunity if one faces insurmountable obstacles that make it impossible to secure the goal.

Equality of outcome.

Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a political concept which is central to some political ideologies and is used regularly in political discourse, often in contrast to the term equality of opportunity.

philosophical outcome.(equality of opportunities).

Rawls (1971), who first focused on the problem of choosing the correct equalisandum, proposed the notion of primary goods, such as basic liberties and rights, access to political and other offices, income and wealth. But primary goods - Sen (1980, 1985, 1992) argues - are still means to an end, rather than ends in themselves. In many cases primary goods are still commodities, which do nt tell us what an individual can really do and be, given her own personal characteristics. The same amount of income does not translate into an equal capacity for movement, for example, for disabled and able-bodied people.Sen’s view the correct space to 4 consider is not that of commodities, but that offunctionings, defined as observable "doings and beings" of persons, such as literacy, nutrition and health status. Moreover - Sen argues - what society should promote and equalize is not some specific vector of functionings – a form of achievement – but the (positive) freedom a person enjoys, intended as the opportunity of attaining the relevant achievement. Hence the proposal of capabilities as the basal space for Sen’s theory of justice, where capabilities are sets of attainable functionings, from which the individual is free to choose.

Rawls’s theory of justice, with its emphasis on basic liberties and primary goods; Sen’s capability approach; Dworkin’s views on equality of resources; and Arneson’s and Cohen’s defense of equal opportunities are each unique in many ways, and there are substantive differences among them. Nevertheless, these approaches do have something in common, something that sets them apart from the prevailing welfarist paradigm that was dominant before them.That common core is the idea that an equitable society is not necessarily a society that makes all people equally happy, or equally rich, or equally educated.

Economic models of equality of opportunity

1. direct approach.

Some of the first attempts to formalize the notion of equality of opportunity withineconomic models sought to treat opportunities directly, or explicitly. Society is then represented as a profile of opportunity sets. The problem of measuring the degree of inequality of opportunity isthen handled by characterizing inequality measures (or rankings) of joint distributions of the elements of individual opportunity sets. Inequality, along with other aspects of that jointdistribution, such as the first moment, then form the basis for an overall social evaluation function to be used in the assessment of social states.

2.indirect approach.

The second family of approaches to a formal treatment of inequality of opportunity in economics is indirect. These approaches are more structural andconsequentialist in nature: the focus is not on the distribution (and redistribution) of opportunities themselves, but rather on the consequences of a given distribution of opportunities as manifested in the joint distribution of an observable advantage and a number of individual characteristics. Roemer’s (1993) influential contribution was mainly concerned with invigorating the egalitarian project by offering a version of egalitarianism that focused primarily on reducing those inequalities perceived as most unfair in western liberal societies: those associated withrace, gender, family background, or ethnicity. Roemer's favorite metaphor to convey the main message of opportunity egalitarianism is that of "leveling the playing field". He proposes a model of optimal taxation in which the social planner's evaluation function incorporates an aversion to inequality due to inherited circumstances.

Important differences among these models, they share a key feature: in all of them the distribution of opportunities is indirectly deduced from models of functional relationships between (potentially observable) individual circumstances, effort and achievements. The idea of these consequentialist approaches is that of modeling opportunities as the set of outcomes that an individual can accessgiven her exogenous circumstances, depending on her choice of effort level (or of different responsibility characteristics).

ultimatum game, for example, the allocation describes the proposed division of the pie by the Proposer, whether it was rejected or accepted, and the resulting payoffs to the two players.

compare two possible allocations, A and B, that may result from an economic interaction. Can we say which is better? Suppose we find that everyone involved in the interaction would prefer allocation A. Then most people would agree that A is a better allocation than B. This criterion for judging between A and B is called the Pareto criterion, after Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist and sociologist

productivity of labour started to increase in Britain around the middle of the 17th century. But it was not until the middle of the 19th century that a combination of shifts in the supply and demand for labour and new institutions, such as trade unions and the right to vote for workers, gave wage earners the bargaining power to raise wages substantiall.

Allocations can be judged unfair because of :• How unequal they are: We measure this inequality along some dimension (such as income, or subjective wellbeing). These are substantive judgments of fairness.• How they came about: Maybe by force, or by competition on a level playing field for example. These are procedural judgements of fairness

The main difference between the two is that, to make a substantive judgement about fairness, all you have to know is the allocation itself.

Two people making substantive evaluations of fairness about the same situation need not agree, of course. For example, they may disagree about whether fairness should be evaluated in terms of income or happiness. If we measure fairness using happiness as the criterion, a person with a serious physical or mental handicap may need much more income than a person without such disabilities to be equally satisfied with his or her life.

measure of inequality in the allocation

1. income

2. happiness.

3. freedom.

MUTUAL GAINS AND CONFLICT

In the game theory one would gain and other would lost.

term justice can be defined differently in different situations. There are various authors who made an attempt define word justice. Still the term justice has not been defined in universally acceptable way.

The Great philosopher Plato and his Teacher Socrates discussed the concept of Justice on the verge of end of Greece Republic. Plato in his Masterful book Republic4 elaborated his idea of justice. The Philosopher Plato while explaining justice denies all earlier theories of justice which emphasized the principles like might is right or justice as an agreement between weaker against stronger to save them from sufferance caused by stronger.

The words social and economic justice is interwoven concept of justice. It is the aspect which specifically concentrates on social and economic progress and development of all human beings without any discrimination. The social and economic justice explains the circumstances in which the individual is enabled with such circumstances which allows him to develop himself to that extent to his best. It excludes barriers in development. Basically human beings are born free on this earth and it is expected that the position of individual must be respected on the basis of equality. He should not be tied to the restrictions and limitations derogatory to his freedom, dignity and honour. The process of civilization witnessed the thousands of year and human being making efforts for his social and economic development sometimes for the cost of unjust exploitation, suppression of other. This was done with the help of upper hand in physical strength, political power, social and economic status. The equality which was bestowed by the nature on human being was disrespected. The people of self-concentric nature neglected others from the process of development and subjected them to unjust situation without justification which may be referred to injustice. Therefore the notion which aims to restore the equality in social and economic status as well as to provide the compensatory circumstances is referred as social and economic justice. The concept of social and economic justice cannot be separated in watertight compartment. Both are supplementary and complimentary to each other.

According to Prof. Honore the principles of social justice contain two aspects. Firstly all men must be considered as just men and they have equal share in all wellbeing available to them. Secondly the equal share of equal men should be modified or limited or restricted with justified principle of discrimination for social justice.

The Constitution of USA is oldest written Constitution of World and worked as grand norm in framing of Constitutions of various Constitution in world. It is also followed in democratic form of Governments in various countries in world. It is basic document of peoples of United States of America securing their basic rights and freedom including social and economic justice.

present scenario in india.

Society India consist of different castes and communities. The Constitution of India must have credited for better Governance in India for more than 65 years of its Constitution. The Constitution of India provides fundamental rights and directive principles in it to provide social and economic Justice to peoples in India. The Constitution of India obliges the Governments in India to frame necessary policies for implementation of social and economic directions set out by Constitution of India through is provisions in preamble, directive principles etc.

The social and economic policies framed by Government play a significant role in progress and development of Indian Society as egalitarian society on the basics of equality, equity, justice principles. The role played by Government cannot be overlooked. But the concept of social and economic justice requires more strength from Government according to changing time. The present policies of social and economic justice must be redefined in the context of Globalization and Privatization.