On the basis of information collected, students will prepare a report and analyse the factors which lead to inequality. (It's of class 7 holiday homework Civics Q1. b part
Answers
Answer:
from a report by UN
Explanation:
Inequality—the state of not being equal, especially in status,
rights, and opportunities1
—is a concept very much at the heart
of social justice theories. However, it is prone to confusion in
public debate as it tends to mean different things to different
people. Some distinctions are common though. Many authors
distinguish “economic inequality”, mostly meaning “income
inequality”, “monetary inequality” or, more broadly, inequality
in “living conditions”. Others further distinguish a rights-based,
legalistic approach to inequality—inequality of rights and associated obligations (e.g. when people are not equal before the law,
or when people have unequal political power).
Concerning economic inequality, much of the discussion has
boiled down to two views. One is chiefly concerned with the
inequality of outcomes in the material dimensions of well-being
and that may be the result of circumstances beyond one’s control
(ethnicity, family background, gender, and so on) as well as talent
and effort. This view takes an ex-post or achievement-oriented
perspective. The second view is concerned with the inequality of
opportunities, that is, it focuses only in the circumstances beyond
one’s control, that affect one’s potential outcomes. This is an exante or potential achievement perspective.
Inequality of outcomes
Inequality of outcomes occurs when individuals do not possess
the same level of material wealth or overall living economic
conditions. Development theory has largely been concerned
with inequalities in standards of living, such as inequalities in
income/wealth, education, health, and nutrition. However, the
lens through which economists gauge progress in these fronts
has typically been income or consumption.
Historically, development theory was concerned with income
inequalities, in so much as it affected or was affected by the economic growth of the average income of the nation. Distributional
concerns were mostly put aside, as growth was thought to eventually “lift all boats” (Kuznets curve). Slowly, studies began showing
that growth had inconclusive effects on inequality, but income
inequality was detrimental for economic growth. Further, as
income inequality rose in many countries, a distributional bias in
the growth process was made evident. Startling levels of poverty
in the late 1990s pushed the income inequality debate to refocus
1 Adapted from Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.
on poverty reduction. Pro-poor growth approaches made their
debut and growth and equity (through income redistribution)
were seen as separate policy instruments, each capable of addressing poverty. The central concern was in raising the incomes of
poor households. By the early 2000s, it was clear that growth and
inequality were not separable, and the previous decade’s focus
on extreme poverty was seen as falling short (indeed, there was
progress in extreme poverty, but income inequalities were rising
in many developing countries). Inclusive growth approaches
emerged, advocating broadly-shared well-being and the extension of disproportionate benefits of growth to a wider share of the
population (UNDP, 2013).
Inequality of opportunity
In the late 1970s, Amartya Sen’s capability framework brought a
new way of thinking about human well-being, its measurement,
and inter-personal comparisons. He proposed that well-being
should be defined and measured in terms of the beings and
doings valued by people (functionings) (Alkire et al., 2015) and
the freedom to choose and to act (capabilities). This approach
emphasizes the freedom to choose one type of life rather than
another. In this framework, equalizing income should not be
the goal, because not all people convert income into well-being
and freedom in the same way. What’s more, this relationship
seems highly dependent on “contingent circumstances, both
personal and social” (Sen, 1999: 70) that include the individual’s
age, gender, family background and disability. It also depends on
climatic conditions, societal conditions (health care, education
systems, prevalence of crime, community relationships), customs
and convention, among other factors. Hence, what should be equalized is not means of living, but the actual opportunities
of living that give people the freedom to pursue a life of their
own choosing.
Frances Stewart has made the case for going beyond a focus
on individuals and examining as well the inequalities that arise
between individuals due to the group(s) they identify with (cultural, gender, age, etc.) and that may be the cause of prejudice,
discrimination, marginalization, or advantage—a phenomenon
she named horizontal inequalities (Stewart, 2002).
To conclude, a society can be said to provide equal opportunities when circumstances do not determine the differences in life
outcomes (Ferreira et al., 2009). In practice, equality of opportunity exists when policies compensate the individuals facing
disadvantageous circumstances.