INEQUALITY OF CONDITION

Where individuals have very different amounts of wealth, status and power. This is a characteristic of all complex modern societies.

Equality of condition is often present in small-scale, hunter-gatherer societies.

Inequality of opportunity occurs where differences in individual possession of wealth, status and power result in definite advantages and disadvantages in the pursuit of personal success.

"Sympathy is rarely strong where there is a great inequality of condition." - Macaulay.

Reducing inequality of condition is the central aim of huge and expensive welfare states, with not only income support for the poor, but excellent education and health care at all income levels. Britain is somewhat less serious, and the USA hasn't been serious since Roosevelt.

We cannot have equality of opportunity without equality of condition. Inequality of condition, like soft discrimination, hurts a child throughout a child's life.

Equality of opportunity is, of course, quite consistent with inequality of condition. But is not the same as two runners given an even start, and equally good tracks. Inequality of condition does not necessarily = inequality of opportunity.

When it comes to general measurement of inequality of condition, inequality of consumption is probably more appropriate than inequality of income.

In American political discourse, a distinction is often made between inequality of condition and inequality of opportunity. The former involves the distribution of valued rewards in society, while the latter has to do with access to these rewards. In terms of scientific work, much more progress has been made on the study of inequality of condition than on the study of inequality of opportunity. This paper proposes an approach to defining and measuring inequality of opportunity that avoids many of the problems found in previous research. In particular, my method: (1) is consistent with contemporary usage of the opportunity concept, (2) differentiates opportunity from outcome, in that opportunity is defined as the chance of achieving a goal, (3) takes into account the fact that people have different chances of developing certain goals, and (4) allows the measurement of inequality of opportunity at both the individual and group levels. The approach is illustrated utilizing occupational data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. The empirical analysis reveals less inequality of occupational opportunity than inequality of income, somewhat more inequality of occupational opportunity among men than women, and more occupational opportunity among women than men. - Measuring opportunity - KRYMKOWSKI Daniel H. - Mathematical Sociology in Japan and America. Conference, Honolulu, Hawai , ETATS-UNIS (23/06/2002) 2001, vol. 25.

INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: Recent Research on Educational Attainment and Social Mobility
Richard Breen and Jan O. Jonsson
Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 31: 223-243 (Volume publication date August 2005)
Studies of how characteristics of the family of origin are associated with educational and labor market outcomes indicate the degree of openness of societies and have a long tradition in sociology. We review research published since 1990 into educational stratification and social (occupational or class) mobility, focusing on the importance of parental socioeconomic circumstances, and with particular emphasis on comparative studies. Large-scale data now available from many countries and several time points have led to more and better descriptions of inequality of opportunity across countries and over time. However, partly owing to problems of comparability of measurement, unambiguous conclusions about trends and ranking of countries have proven elusive. In addition, no strong evidence exists that explains intercountry differences. We conclude that the 1990s witnessed a resurgence of microlevel models, mostly of a rational choice type, that signals an increased interest in moving beyond description in stratification research. - arjournals.annualreviews.org

"This, I think, gives us two kinds of reasons to worry about inequality of condition. One is that inequality of condition undermines equality of opportunity, which is an important value. Another is that inequality of condition in part reflects previous unequal opportunities, which is unjust. Of course, you don't want to do too much to advance equality of condition, since taken to extremes that would undermine everyone's prosperity. Nor do you want to go too far in efforts at generating equal opportunities or you'll fatally undermine liberty. But you do want to do some of both. Both are important values, they're mutually re-enforcing, but neither one can be realized at the limit without undermining yet other important values." - Matthew Yglesias is a writer living in Washington, DC. - matthewyglesias.com

Disquisition on Government - John C. Calhoun, 1840 - Excerpt
"Equality of citizens, in the eyes of the law, is essential to liberty in a popular government, is conceded. But to go further, and make equality of condition essential to liberty, would be to destroy both liberty and progress. The reason is, that inequality of condition, while it is a necessary consequence of liberty, is, at the same time, indispensable to progress. In order to understand why this is so, it is necessary to bear in mind, that the main spring to progress is, the desire of individuals to better their condition; and that the strongest impulse which can be given to it is, to leave individuals free to exert themselves in the manner they may deem best for that purpose, as far at least as it can be done consistently with the ends for which government is ordained,—and to secure to all the fruits of their exertions. Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity,—the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on the exertions on them would be destructive of liberty,—while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition. It is, indeed, this inequality of condition between the front and rear ranks, in the march of progress, which gives so strong an impulse to the former to maintain their position, and to the latter to press forward into their files. This gives to progress its greatest impulse. To force the front rank back to the rear, or attempt to push forward the rear into line with the front, by the interposition of the government, would put an end to the impulse, and effectually arrest the march of progress."

Naxalism and Maoism