Inequality of opportunity in the land of opportunities, 1968–2001

Pistolesi, Nicolas

doi:10.1007/s10888-008-9099-7

Cited by 82 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result sensibly differs with respect to previous parametric and non-parametric empirical evidences for Roemer's inequality of opportunity, which is usually found between 15% and 20% (Abatemarco 2015, Pistolesi 2009). Nevertheless, this is just what one may expect; Roemer's view is grounded on the legitimation of income gaps with respect to the sole origins of inequality, whereas Rawlsian inequity is defined by accounting for both the origins and the implications of income inequality.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Iniquitous income disparities are found to account for 55.7-64.9% of overall outcome inequality. As compared to the 15-20% of iniquitous income disparities as estimated for Roemer's inequality of opportunity (Pistolesi 2009, Abatemarco 2015, our analysis highlights that opting for the Rawlsian idea of justice more than doubles the share of illegitimate inequalities in the US.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Doing Rawls Justice: Evidence from the PSID

Abatemarco

2016

Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distributive value judgments based on the 'origins' of economic inequalities (e.g. circumstances and responsible choices) are increasingly evoked to argue that 'the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal'. However, one may reasonably agree that distributive value judgments should also account for the 'consequences' of economic inequalities in such a way as to (i) improve economic efficiency and (ii) prevent from subordination, exploitation and humiliation. In this way of thinking, by evoking the well-known Rawlsian 'Fair Equality of Opportunity' and 'Difference Principle', the author proposes a pragmatical non-parametric estimation strategy to compare income distributions in terms of Rawlsian inequity and its contribution to overall inequality. The latter methodology is applied to PSID data from 1999 to 2013 and compared with existing empirical evidences on Roemer's (A Pragmatic Theory of Responsibility for the Egalitarian Planner, 1993, and Equality of Opportunity, 1998) inequality of opportunity. Remarkably, Rawlsian inequity is found between 56% and 65% of the overall income inequality, with an increasing pattern originating from the recent economic crisis. JEL D63 I32 D3

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Doing Rawls Justice: Evidence from the PSID

Abatemarco

2016

Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The table highlights a number of problems for comparability across these studies. First is the nature of the advantage variable (y) itself: whereas , Pistolesi (2009), Singh (2011 and Belhaj-Hassine use labor earnings, Ferreira andPiraino (2012) use incomes, Cogneau andMesple-Somps (2008) use consumption, and use imputed consumption. And the definitions of earnings and incomes are not exactly the same across each of these papers either.…”

Section: Ex-ante Inequality Of Opportunity In 41 Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequality of Opportunity, Income Inequality and Economic Mobility: Some International Comparisons

Brunori

Ferreira²,

Peragine³

2013

Policy Research Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a recent surge in the number of studies attempting to measure inequality of opportunity in various countries, methodological differences have so far prevented meaningful international comparisons. This paper presents a comparison of ex-ante measures of inequality of economic opportunity (IEO) across 41 countries, and of the Human Opportunity Index (HOI) for 39 countries. It also examines international correlations between these indices and output per capita, income inequality, and intergenerational mobility. The analysis finds evidence of a "Kuznets curve" for inequality of opportunity, and finds that the IEO index is positively correlated with overall income inequality, and negatively with measures of intergenerational mobility, both in incomes and in years of schooling. The HOI is highly correlated with the Human Development Index, and its internal measure of inequality of opportunity yields very different country rankings from the IEO measure

show abstract

“…For example, see Roemer et al (2003), Brunello and Checchi (2007), Ferreira and Gignoux (2011), Trannoy (2008, 2009), Pistolesi (2009) andSchütz, Ursprung andWößmann (2008). The theory of equality of opportunity has been applied also to health issues.…”

Section: A the Theory Of Equality Of Opportunitymentioning

confidence: 99%