how to solve social inequality essay

Learn to build a world where everyone belongs. Take free classes at OBI University.   Start Now

The Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley brings together researchers, organizers, stakeholders, communicators, and policymakers to identify and eliminate the barriers to an inclusive, just, and sustainable society in order to create transformative change.

• Faculty Clusters

john a. powell is an internationally recognized expert in the areas of civil rights, civil liberties, structural racism, housing, poverty, and democracy.

Launched in Fall 2018 as the Institute's official podcast, Who Belongs? is an ongoing series that demonstrates our commitment to public dialogue.

• Email Sign Up

Six policies to reduce economic inequality

• September 10, 2014
• By john a. powell

Almost three years to the date since Occupy Wall Street first raised the consciousness of Americans about the wide economic disparities between the richest one percent versus the 99 percent of U.S. earners,  new Federal Reserve data confirms that wealth and income inequality in the U.S. is accelerating.

Results from the Fed's 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances show that the top 3 percent own 54.4 percent of America's wealth, an increase of almost 45 percent since 1989 and the bottom 90 percent own only 24.7 percent of wealth, a drop of 33.2 percent over the same time period. Similarly, the share of total income for the top 3 percent of families rose when compared to 2010 but the bottom 90 percent of families saw their share of total income declinePerhaps not surprisingly, the survey found significant disparities by race, class, homeownership status and education; with income and wealth increasing for non-Hispanic whites, the rich, homeowners and those with more education while it decreased for blacks, lower income households, renters and those with less than a college education.

While discouraging, it is important for Americans to understand that inequality is not the inevitable side effect of capitalism. Public policy can help to reduce inequality and address poverty without slowing U.S. economic growth.

Toward this goal, researchers from the  Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at UC Berkeley  point to the following six evidence-based policy solutions that can have a positive effect on reversing rising inequality, closing economic disparities among subgroups and enhancing economic mobility for all:

1. Increase the minimum wage.

Research shows that higher wages for the lowest-paid workers has the potential to help nearly 4.6 million people out of poverty and add approximately $2 billion to the nation's overall real income. Additionally, increasing the minimum wage does not hurt employment nor does it retard economic growth.

2. Expand the Earned Income Tax.

In recent years, the EITC has been shown to have a positive impact on families, lifting roughly 4.7 million children above the poverty line on an annual basis. Increases in the EITC can pull more children out of poverty while providing more economic support for the working poor, especially single parents entering the workforce.

3. Build assets for working families.

Policies that encourage higher savings rates and lower the cost of building assets for working and middle class households can provide better economic security for struggling families. New programs that automatically enroll workers in retirement plans and provide a savings credit or a federal match for retirement savings accounts could help lower-income households build wealth. Access to fair, low-cost financial services and home ownership are also important pathways to wealth.

4. Invest in education.

Differences in early education and school quality are the most important components contributing to persistent inequality across generations. Investments in education, beginning in early childhood with programs like Head Start and Universal Pre-K, can increase economic mobility, contribute to increased productivity and decrease inequality.

5. Make the tax code more progressive.

It is a great irony that tax rates for those at the top have been declining even as their share of income and wealth has increased dramatically. The data show we have created bad tax policy by giving capital gains -- profits from the sale of property or investments -- special privileges in our country's tax code; privileges that give investment income more value than actual work. Capital gains tax rates must be adjusted so that they are in line with income tax rates. Savings incentives structured as refundable tax credits, which treat every dollar saved equally, can provide equal benefits for lower-income families.

6. End residential segregation.

Higher levels of racial residential segregation within a metropolitan region are strongly correlated with significantly reduced levels of intergenerational upward mobility for all residents of that area. Segregation by income, particularly the isolation of low-income households, also correlates with significantly reduced levels of upward mobility. Eliminating residential segregation by income and race can boost economic mobility for all.

But getting policymakers to prioritize these policies will depend on the actions of advocates, voters and other supporters with a vision for a fair and inclusive society so strong that they overwhelm powerful forces that seek to maintain the status quo. 

Each of these policies, if carefully implemented, has the potential to lift working families out of poverty, support greater economic mobility and/or reduce the growth of inequality. All of these policies could be enacted at the local, state and federal levels if there is political will. While there is still some disagreements of the best way to reduce inequality, there is a growing consensus that inequality should be reduce.

Recently the  IMF joined this consensus in finding  that inequality reduces overall economy growth as well as challenges basic democratic principle and fairness. But getting policymakers to prioritize these policies will depend on the actions of advocates, voters and other supporters with a vision for a fair and inclusive society so strong that they overwhelm powerful forces that seek to maintain the status quo.

This article originally appeared on the Huffington Post .

The ideas expressed on the Haas Institute blog are not necessarily those of UC Berkeley or the Division of Equity & Inclusion, where the Haas Institute website is hosted. They are not official and not of one mind. Thoughts here are those of individual authors. We are committed to academic freedom, free speech and civil liberties. 

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 9. Social Inequality

9.1. What Is Social Inequality?

Sociologists use the term social inequality to describe the unequal distribution of valued resources, rewards, and social positions in a society. Key to the concept are the notions of social differentiation and social stratification . The question for sociologists is: how are systems of stratification formed? What is the basis of systematic social inequality in society?

Social differentiation refers to the social characteristics — social differences, identities, and roles — used to differentiate people and divide them into different categories, such as race, gender, age, class, occupation, and education. These social categories have implications for social inequality. Social differentiation by itself does not necessarily imply a division of individuals into a hierarchy of rank, privilege, and power. However, when a social category like class, occupation, gender, or race puts people in a position where they can claim a greater share of resources or rewards, then social differentiation becomes the basis of social inequality.

The term social stratification refers to an institutionalized system of social inequality. It refers to a situation in which social inequality has solidified into an ongoing system that determines and reinforces who gets what, when, and why. Social differentiation based on different characteristics becomes the basis for social inequality.

Students may remember the word “stratification” from geology class. The distinct horizontal layers found in rock, called “strata,” are a good way to visualize social structure. Society’s layers are made of people, and society’s resources are distributed unevenly throughout the layers. The people with the most resources represent the top layer of the social structure of stratification. Other groups of people, with progressively fewer and fewer resources, represent the lower layers of society. Social stratification assigns people to socio-economic strata based on a process of social differentiation — “these type of people go here, and those type of people go there.” The outcome is differences in wealth, income and power. Again, the question for sociologists is how systems of stratification are formed. What is the basis of systematic social inequality in society?

Equality of Condition and Equality of Opportunity

In Canada, the dominant ideological presumption about social inequality is that everyone has an equal chance at success. This is the belief in equality of opportunity , which can be contrasted with the concept of equality of condition . Equality of opportunity is the idea that everyone has an equal possibility of becoming successful. It exists when people have the same chance to pursue economic or social rewards. This is often seen as a function of equal access to education, meritocracy (where individual merit determines social standing), and formal or informal measures to eliminate social discrimination.

Equality of condition is the situation in which everyone in a society has a similar actual level of wealth, status, and power. Although degrees of equality of condition vary markedly in modern societies, it is clear that even the most egalitarian societies today have considerable degrees of inequality of condition. Ultimately, equality of opportunity means that inequalities of condition are not so great that they greatly hamper a person’s opportunities or life chances. Whether Canada is a society characterized by equality of opportunity, or not, is a subject of considerable sociological debate.

To a certain extent, Ted Rogers’ story illustrates the idea of equality of opportunity. His personal narrative is one in which hard work and talent — not inherent privilege, birthright, prejudicial treatment, or societal values — determined his social rank. This emphasis on individual effort is based on the belief that people individually control where they end up in the social hierarchy, which is a key piece in the idea of equality of opportunity. Most people connect inequalities of wealth, status, and power to the individual characteristics of those who succeed or fail. The story of the Aboriginal gang members, although it is also a story of personal choices, casts that belief into doubt. It is clear that the type of choices available to the Aboriginal gang members are of a different range and quality than those available to the Rogers family. The available choices and opportunities are a product of habitus and location within the system of social stratification .

While there are always inequalities between individuals in terms of talent, skill, drive, chance, and so on, sociologists are interested in larger social patterns. Social inequality is not about individual qualities and differences, but about systematic inequalities based on group membership, class, gender, ethnicity, and other variables that structure access to rewards and status. In other words, sociologists are interested in examining the structural conditions of social inequality. There are of course differences in individuals’ abilities and talents that will affect their life chances. The larger question, however, is how inequality becomes systematically structured in economic, social, and political life. In terms of individual ability: Who gets the opportunities to develop their abilities and talents, and who does not? Where does “ability” or “talent” come from? As Canadians live in a society that emphasizes the individual (individual effort, individual morality, individual choice, individual responsibility, individual talent, etc.) it is often difficult to see the way in which life chances are socially structured.

Wealth, Income, Power and Status

Factors that define the layers of stratification vary in different societies. In most modern societies, stratification is indicated by differences in wealth , the net value of money and assets a person has, and income , a person’s wages, salary, or investment dividends. It can also be defined by differences in power (e.g., how many people a person must take orders from versus how many people a person can give orders to, or how many people are affected by one’s orders) and status (the degree of honour or prestige one has in the eyes of others). These four factors create a complex amalgam that defines an individual’s social standing within a hierarchy.

Usually the four factors coincide, as in the case of corporate CEOs, like Ted Rogers, at the top of the hierarchy — wealthy, powerful, and prestigious — and the Aboriginal offenders at the bottom — poor, powerless, and abject. Sociologists use the term status consistency to describe the consistency of an individual’s rank across these factors.

Students can also think of someone like the Canadian Prime Minister — who ranks high in power, but with a salary of approximately $320,000 — earns much less than comparable executives in the private sector (albeit eight times the average Canadian salary). The Prime Minister’s status or prestige also rises and falls with the fluctuations of politics and public opinion. The Nam-Boyd scale of status, based on education and income, ranks politicians (legislators) at 66/100, the same status as cable TV technicians (Boyd, 2008). There is status inconsistency in the prime minister’s position.

Teachers often have high levels of education, which give them high status (92/100 according to the Nam-Boyd scale), but they receive relatively low pay. Many believe that teaching is a noble profession, so teachers should do their jobs for the love of their profession and the good of their students, not for money. Yet no successful executive or entrepreneur would embrace that attitude in the business world, where profits are valued as a driving force. Cultural attitudes and beliefs like these support and perpetuate social inequalities.

Systems of Stratification

Sociologists distinguish between two types of stratification systems. Closed systems accommodate little change in social position. They do not allow people to shift levels and do not permit social relations between levels. Open systems, which are based on achievement, allow movement and interaction between layers and classes. The different systems also produce and foster different cultural values, like the values of loyalty and traditions versus the values of innovation and individualism. The difference in stratification systems can be examined by the comparison between class systems and caste systems.

The Caste System

Caste systems are closed stratification systems in which people can do little or nothing to change their social standing. A caste system is one in which people are born into their social standing and remain in it their whole lives. It is based on fixed or rigid status distinctions, rather than economic classes per se.

As noted above, status is defined by the level of honour or prestige one receives by virtue of membership in a group. Sociologists make a distinction between ascribed status: a status one receives by virtue of being born into a category or group (e.g., caste, hereditary position, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.), and achieved status:   a status one receives through individual effort or merits (e.g., occupation, educational level, moral character, etc.). Caste systems are based on a hierarchy of ascribed statuses, because people are born into fixed caste groups. A person’s occupation and opportunity for education follow from their caste position.

In a caste system, people are assigned roles regardless of their individual talents, interests, or potential. Marriage is endogamous (from endo- ‘within’ and  Greek gamos ‘marriage’) which means marriage between castes is forbidden, whereas exogamous marriage is a marriage union between people from different social groups. There are virtually no opportunities to improve one’s social position. Instead, the relationship between castes is bound by institutionalized rules, and highly ritualistic procedures come into play when people from different castes come into contact. People value traditions and often devote considerable time to perfecting the details of ritualistic procedures.

The feudal systems of Europe and Japan can, in some ways, be seen as caste systems in that the statuses of positions in the social stratification systems were fixed, and there was little or no opportunity for movement through marriage or economic opportunities. In Europe, the feudal estate system divided the population into clergy (first estate), nobility (second estate), and commoners (third estate), which included artisans, merchants, and peasants. In early European feudalism, it was still possible for a peasant or a warrior to achieve a high position in the clergy or nobility, but later the divisions became more rigid. In Japan, between 1603 and 1867, the mibunsei system divided society into five rigid strata in which social standing was inherited. At the top was the Emperor, then court nobles ( kuge ), military commander-in-chief ( shogun ), and land-owning lords ( daimyo ). Beneath them were four classes or castes: the military nobility ( samurai ), peasants, craftsmen, and merchants. The merchants were considered the lowest class because they did not produce anything with their own hands. There was also an outcast or untouchable caste known as the burakumin, who were considered impure or defiled because of their association with death: executioners, undertakers, slaughterhouse workers, tanners, and butchers (Kerbo, 2006).

The caste system in India from 4,000 years ago until the 20th century probably best typifies the system of stratification. In the Hindu caste tradition, people were expected to work in the occupation of their caste and enter into marriage according to their caste. Originally there were four castes: Brahmans (priests), Kshatriyas (military), Vaisyas (merchants), and Sudras (artisans, farmers). There were also the Dalits or Harijans (“untouchables”). Hindu scripture said, “In order to preserve the universe, Brahma (the Supreme) caused the Brahmin to proceed from his mouth, the Kshatriya to proceed from his arm, the Vaishya to proceed from his thigh, and the Shudra to proceed from his foot” (Kashmeri, 1990).

Accepting this social standing was considered a moral duty. Cultural values and economic restrictions reinforced the system. Caste systems promote beliefs in fate, destiny, and the will of a higher power, rather than promoting individual freedom as a value. A person who lives in a caste society is socialized to accept their social standing, and this is reinforced by the society’s dominant norms and values.

Although the caste system in India has been officially dismantled, its residual presence in Indian society is deeply embedded. In rural areas, aspects of the tradition are more likely to remain, while urban centres show less evidence of this past. In India’s larger cities, people now have opportunities to choose their own career paths and marriage partners. As a global centre of employment, corporations have introduced merit-based hiring and employment to the nation. The caste system has been largely replaced by a class system of structured inequality. Nevertheless, Dalits continue to experience violence and discrimination in hiring or obtaining business loans (Jodhka, 2018).

The Class System

A class system is based on both socio-economic factors and individual achievement. It is at least a partially open system. A class consists of a set of people who have the same relationship to the means of production or productive property — that is, to the things used to produce the goods and services needed for survival, such as tools, technologies, resources, land, workplaces, etc. In Karl Marx’s (1848) analysis, class systems form around the institution of private property, dividing those who own or control productive property from those who do not, who survive on the basis of selling their labour. In capitalist societies, for example, the dominant classes are the capitalist class and the working class.

In a class system, social inequality is structural , meaning it is built into the organization of the economy. The relationship to the means of production (i.e., ownership/non-ownership) defines a persistent, objective pattern of social relationships that exists independently of individuals’ personal or voluntary choices and motives.

Unlike caste systems, however, class systems are open in the sense that individuals are able to change class position. Individuals are at least formally free to gain a different level of education or occupation than their parents. They can move up and down within the stratification system. They can also socialize with and marry members of other classes, allowing people to move from one class to another. In other words, individuals can move up and down the class hierarchy, even while the class categories and the class hierarchy itself remain relatively stable. It is not impossible for individuals to pass back and forth between classes through social mobility , but the class structure itself remains intact, structuring people’s lives, privileges, wealth, and social possibilities.

In a class system, one’s occupation is not fixed at birth. Though family background tends to predict where one ends up in the stratification system, personal factors play a role. For example, Ted Rogers Jr. chose a career in media like his father but managed to move upward from a position of modest wealth and privilege in the petite bourgeoisie, to being the fifth-wealthiest bourgeois in the country. On the other hand, his father Ted Sr. chose a career in radio based on individual interests that differed from his own father’s. Ted Sr.’s father, Albert Rogers, held a position as a director of Imperial Oil. Ted Sr. therefore moved downward from the class of the bourgeoisie to the class of the petite bourgeoisie.

Making Connections: Case Study

The commoner who could be queen.

On April 29, 2011, in London, England, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, married Catherine (“Kate”) Middleton, a commoner. Throughout its history, it has been rare, though not unheard of, for a member of the British royal family to marry a commoner. Kate Middleton had an upper-middle-class upbringing. Her father was a former flight dispatcher, and her mother was a former flight attendant. The family then formed a lucrative mail order business for party accessories. William was the elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales. Kate and William met when they were both students at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland (Köhler, 2010).

The rules regarding the marriage of royals trace their history to Britain’s formal feudal monarchy, which arose with William of Normandy’s conquest in 1066. Feudal social hierarchy was originally based on landholding. The monarch’s family (royalty) was at the top, vassals, nobles and knights (landholders) below the king, and commoners or serfs on the bottom. This was generally a closed system, with people born into positions of nobility or serfdom. Wealth was passed from generation to generation through primogeniture , a law stating that all property was to be inherited by the firstborn son. If the family had no son, the land went to the next closest male relation. Women could not inherit property, and their social standing was primarily determined through marriage. From the late feudal era onward, a royal marrying a commoner was a scandal. In 1937, the British parliament obliged Edward VIII to abdicate his succession to King of the United Kingdom, so he could marry the American divorcée, Wallis Simpson. Not only was she a commoner, but she was also divorced , which contradicted the Church of England doctrine.

The rise of capitalism changed Britain’s class structure. The feudal commoner class generated both the new dominant class of the bourgeoisie or capitalists and the new subordinate class of the proletariat or wage labourers. The aristocracy and the royals continued as a class through their wealth and property, but their position in society became increasingly based on status and tradition alone. Today, the British government is a constitutional monarchy, with the prime minister and other ministers elected to their positions.  The royal family’s role is largely ceremonial. The historical differences between nobility and commoners have blurred, and the modern class system in Britain is similar to Canada. Since Edward VIII’s abdication in 1937, Queen Elizabeth II’s sister and several of her children and grandchildren have married commoners.

Today, the royal family still commands wealth, power, and a great deal of attention. In 2017, Forbes estimated the total wealth of the royal family to be $88 billion (Rodriguez, 2017). Since Queen Elizabeth II passed away in September 2022, Prince Charles has ascended the throne as king. His wife Camille Parker-Bowles, also a commoner and divorcée, is expected to become “Princess Consort.” If Charles had abdicated (chosen not to become king) or died, the position would go to Prince William. If that happened, Kate Middleton would be called Queen Catherine and hold the position of Queen Consort. She would be one of the few queens in history to have earned a university degree (Marquand, 2011). Of note here is, of course, Prince Harry, who married the commoner and divorcée Meghan Markle. Prince Harry is currently 6th in line for the British throne, after Prince William’s children. If she succeeded to Queen Consort, Meghan Markle would be the first queen with African heritage.

Initially there was a great deal of social pressure on Kate Middleton not only to behave as a royal, but to bear children. The royal family recently changed its succession laws to allow daughters, not just sons, to ascend the throne. Her firstborn son, Prince George, was born on July 22, 2013, so the new succession law is not likely to be tested in the near future. However, behind George is Princess Charlotte (b. 2015) and Prince Louis (b. 2018). Kate’s experience — from commoner to possible queen — demonstrates the fluidity of social class position in modern society.

Social Class

Social class is both obvious and not so obvious in Canadian society. It is based on subjective impressions, outward symbols, and less visible structural determinants. Can one tell a person’s education level based on clothing? Is opening an $80 bottle of wine for dinner normal, an exceptional occasion, or an insane waste of money? Can one guess a person’s income by the car they drive? There was a time in Canada when people’s class was more visibly apparent. In some countries, like the United Kingdom, class differences can still be gauged by differences in schooling, lifestyle, and even accent. In Canada, however, it is harder to determine class from outward appearances.

For sociologists, too, categorizing class is a fluid science. One debate in the discipline is between Marxist and Weberian approaches to social class (Abercrombie & Urry, 1983).

Marx’s analysis emphasizes a historical materialist approach to the underlying structures of the capitalist economy. Classes are historical formations that distribute people into categories based on the organization and structure of the economy. Marx’s definition of social class rests essentially on one materialist variable: a group’s relation to the means of production (ownership or non-ownership of productive property or capital). Therefore, in Marxist class analysis, there are two dominant classes in capitalism — the working class and the owning class — and any divisions within the classes based on occupation, status, education, etc. are less important than the tendency toward increasing separation and polarization of these two classes.

Marx referred to these two classes as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat . The capitalist class (bourgeoisie) lives from the proceeds of owning or controlling productive property (capital assets like factories, technology, software platforms or machinery, or capital itself in the form of investments, stocks, and bonds).  The working class (proletariat) live from selling their labour to the capitalists for a wage or salary.  Their interests are in conflict, as higher profits depend on lower wages, which accounts for the characteristic power dynamics, conflicts, instabilities and periodic crises of capitalist societies.

In addition, he described the classes of the petite bourgeoisie (the little bourgeoisie) and the lumpenproletariat (the sub-proletariat). The petite bourgeoisie are those like small business owners, farmers, and contractors who own some property and perhaps employ a few workers, but still rely on their own labour to survive. The lumpenproletariat are the chronically unemployed or irregularly employed, who are in and out of the workforce. They are what Marx referred to as the “reserve army of labour,” a pool of potential labourers who are surplus to the needs of production at any particular time.

Weber defined social class slightly differently, as the life chances one shares in common with others by virtue of possession of property, goods, skills or opportunities for income (1969). Life chances refer to the ability or probability of an individual to act on opportunities and attain a certain standard of living. Owning property or capital, or not owning property or capital, is still the basic variable that defines a person’s class situation or life chances. However, class position is defined with respect to markets rather than the process of production . It is the value of one’s capital, products or skills in the commodity or labour markets at any particular time that determines whether one has greater or fewer life chances.

This yields a model of class hierarchy based on multiple gradations of socio-economic status, instead of a division between two principle classes. Analyses of class inspired by Weber tend to emphasize gradations of status relating to several variables like wealth, income, education, and occupation. Class stratification is not just determined by a group’s economic position, but by the prestige of the group’s occupation, education level, consumption, and lifestyle. It is a matter of status — the level of honour or prestige one holds in the community by virtue of one’s social position — as much as a matter of class.

Based on the Weberian approach, some sociologists talk about upper, middle, and lower classes (with many subcategories within them) in a way that mixes status categories with class categories. These gradations are often referred to as a group’s socio-economic status ( SES ): their social position relative to others based on income, education, and prestige of occupation . For example, although plumbers might earn more than high school teachers and have greater “life chances” in a particular economy, the status division between blue-collar work (people who “work with their hands”) and white-collar work (people who “work with their minds”) means the plumbers might be characterized as lower class but teachers as middle class.

There is a randomness in the division of classes into upper, middle, and lower in the Weberian model. However, this manner of classification based on status distinctions captures something about the subjective experience of class and the shared lifestyle and consumption patterns of class that Marx’s categories often do not. An NHL hockey player receiving a salary of $6 million a year is a member of the working class, strictly speaking. He might even go on strike or get locked out according to the dynamic of capital and labour conflict described by Marx. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see what the life chances of the hockey player have in common with a landscaper or receptionist, despite the fact that they might share a common working-class background.

Class: Materialist and Interpretive Factors

Social class is a complex category to analyze. It has both a strictly materialist quality relating to a group’s structural position within the economic system, and an interpretive quality relating to the formation of status gradations, common subjective perceptions of class, differences of power in society, and class-based lifestyles and consumption patterns. Considering both the Marxist and Weberian models, social class has at least three objective components: a group’s position in the occupational structure (i.e., the status and salary of one’s job), a group’s position in the power structure (i.e., who has authority over whom), and a group’s position in the property structure (i.e., ownership or non-ownership of capital). It also has an important subjective component that relates to recognitions of status, distinctions of lifestyle, and ultimately how people perceive their place in the class hierarchy.

Making Connections: Classic Sociologists

Marx and weber on social class: how do they differ.

Often, Marx and Weber are perceived as at odds in their approaches to class and social inequality, but it is perhaps better to see them as articulating different styles of analysis.

Weber’s analysis presents a more complex model of the social hierarchy of capitalist society than Marx. Weber’s model goes beyond the economic structural class position to include the variables of status (degree of social prestige or honour) and power (degree of political influence). Thus, Weber provides a multi-dimensional model of social hierarchy. As a result, although individuals might be from the same objective class, their position in the social hierarchy might differ according to their status and political influence. For example, women and men might be equal in terms of their class position, but because of the inequality in the status of the genders within each class, women (as a group) remain lower in the social hierarchy.

With respect to class specifically, Weber also relies on a different definition than Marx. As noted above, Weber (1969) defines class as the “life chances” one shares in common with others by virtue of one’s possession of goods or opportunities for income. Class is defined with respect to markets, rather than the process of production. As in Marx’s analysis, the economic position that stems from owning property and capital, or not owning property and capital, is still the basic variable that defines one’s class situation or life chances. However, as the value of different types of capital or property (e.g., industrial, real estate, financial, etc.), or the value of different types of opportunity for income (i.e., different types of marketable skills), varies according to changes in the commodity or labour markets, Weber can provide a more nuanced description of an individual’s class position than Marx. A skilled tradesman like a pipe welder might enjoy a higher class position and greater life chances in Northern Alberta where such skills are in demand, than a high school teacher in Vancouver or Victoria where the number of qualified teachers exceeds the number of positions available. If one adds the element of status into the picture, the situation becomes even more complex, as the educational requirements and social responsibilities of the high school teacher usually confer more social prestige than the requirements and responsibilities of the pipe welder.

Nevertheless, Weber’s analysis is descriptive rather than analytical . It can provide a useful description of differences between the levels or “strata” in a social hierarchy or stratification system but does not provide an analysis of the formation of classes themselves.

On the other hand, Marx’s analysis of class is essentially one-dimensional. It has one variable: the relationship to the means of production. If one is a professional hockey player, a doctor in a hospital, or a clerk in a supermarket, one works for a wage and is therefore a member of the working class. In this regard, his analysis challenges common sense, as the difference between these different “fragments” of the working class seems paramount — at least from the point of view of the subjective experience of class. It would seem that hockey players, doctors, lawyers, professors, and business executives have very little in common with grocery clerks, factory or agricultural workers, tradespeople, or low level administrative staff, despite the fact that they all depend on being paid wages by someone.

However, the key point of Marx’s analysis is not to ignore the existence of status distinctions within classes, but to examine class structure dialectically in order to provide a more comprehensive and historical picture of class dynamics.

The four components of dialectical analysis were described in Chapter 1. An Introduction to Sociology : (1) Everything in society is related; (2) everything is caught up in a process of change; (3) change proceeds from the quantitative to the qualitative; and (4) change is the product of oppositions and struggles in society. These dialectical qualities are also central to Marx’s account of the hierarchical structure of classes in capitalist society.

With regard to the first point — everything in society is related — the main point of the dialectical analysis of class is that the working class and the owning class have to be understood in a structural relationship to one another. They emerged together out of the old class structure of feudalism. More significantly for Marx, each exists only because the other exists. The wages that define the wage labourer are paid by the capitalist; the profit and capital accumulated by the capitalist are products of the workers’ labour.

In Marx’s dialectical model, “everything is caught up in a process of change” occurs because the system is characterized by the struggle of opposites.  The classes are structurally in conflict because the contradiction in their class interests is built into the economic system. The bourgeoisie as a class is defined by the economic drive to accumulate capital and increase profit. The key means to achieve this in a competitive marketplace is by reducing the cost of production by lowering the cost of labour (by reducing wages, moving production to lower wage areas, or replacing workers with labour-saving technologies). This conflicts with the interests of the proletariat who seek to establish a sustainable standard of living by maintaining their level of wages and employment in society. While individual capitalists and individual workers might not see it this way, structurally, their class interests clash and define a persistent pattern of management-labour conflict and political cleavage in modern, capitalist societies.

So, from the dialectical model, Marx can predict that the composition of classes changes over time: the statuses of different occupations vary, the proportions between workers’ income and capitalists’ profit change, and the types of production and the means of production change (through the introduction of labour-saving technologies, globalization, new products and consumption patterns, etc.). In addition, change proceeds from the quantitative to the qualitative, in the sense that the multiplicity of changes in purely quantitative variables like salary, working conditions, unemployment levels, rates of profitability, product sales, supply and demand, etc., lead to changes in qualitative variables like the subjective experience of inequality and injustice, the political divisions of “left” and “right,” the formation of class-consciousness, and eventually change in the entire economic system through new models of capital accumulation or even revolution.

The strength of Marx’s analysis is its ability to go beyond a description of where different groups fit within the class structure at a given moment in time to an analysis of why those groups and their relative positions change with respect to one another. The dialectical approach reveals the underlying logic of class structure as a dynamic system, and the potential commonality of interests and subjective experiences that define class-consciousness. As a result, in an era in which the precariousness of many high status “middle class” jobs has become clearer, the divisions of economic and political interests between the different segments of the working class becomes less so.

Media Attributions

• Figure 9.3 Office Politics: A Rise to the Top by Alex Proimos, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY-NC 2.0 licence.
• Figure 9.4 Strata in the Badlands by Just a Prairie Boy, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY 2.0 licence.
• Figure 9.5 Fort Mason Neighborhood by Orin Zebest, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY 2.0 licence.
• Figure 9.6  Woman, construction, worker, temple, india, manual, poor, labourer, labour , via PxHere, is used under a CC0 Public Domain licence. 
• Figure 9.7 Royal wedding Kate & William by Gerard Stolk, via Flickr, is used under a CC BY-NC 2.0  licence. 
• Figure 9.8 Item B-03624 – Group of Nanaimo coal miners at the pithead by unknown photographer, [ca. 1870]  (Creation) via the Royal BC Museum/ British Columbia Archives Collection (Item B-03624), is in the public domain .
• Figure 9.9 James and Laura Dunsmuir in Italian Garden at Hatley Park, by unknown photographer, 1912-1920  (Creation), courtesy of Craigdarroch Castle Society,  is in the public domain .
• Figure 9.10 File:MAX WEBER.jpg  by Power Renegadas, via Wikimedia Commons, is used under a CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.
• Figure 9.11   Karl Marx by John Mayall, via Wikimedia Commons, is in the public domain .

Introduction to Sociology – 3rd Canadian Edition Copyright © 2023 by William Little is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Student Life
• University News
• Research & Learning
• Politics & Society
• Pause for Applause

Four Ways to Cure the Ills of Social Inequality

Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, discussed the drivers of social inequality with Amitai Etzioni, university professor and director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies on Monday.

By Brittney Dunkins

The rising wealth gap between the “1 percent” and middle and lower income Americans has been studied in depth by academics and covered in detail by major news outlets , but for Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , the unprecedented disparity boils down to one question: Are high levels of income inequality affecting equal opportunity and upward mobility ?

In a conversation led by University Professor and Director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies Amitai Etzioni, Mr. Bernstein argued that yes, since the 1970s growing income inequality has negatively affected the economy and lowered standards of living for middle and lower income Americans.

“The picture that comes to mind to explain this issue is the disconnect between productivity growth and compensation growth for the typical worker,” Mr. Bernstein said. “If you’re contributing to the growth of the economic pie, there’s no reason your slice should be getting smaller, in fact, it should be getting larger as it did for years.”

The discussion, “Social Inequality: The Scope and Sources of the Problem and Alternative Treatments,” was co-hosted by the George Washington University’s Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration and the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies and held at the Jack Morton Auditorium on Monday night.

It was the first event in a series that will explore the drivers of social inequality in the U.S., including, as Mr. Bernstein proposed, a decline in labor standards, globalization, technology, an unrestrained fiscal policy and a “scary connection” between wealth and political representation. 

“The country that can neither diagnose what’s wrong, nor prescribe a solution, strikes me as one in a lot of trouble,” Mr. Bernstein said.

George Washington Today summarized Mr. Bernstein’s four suggestions to address the widening wealth gap:

1. Hold the government accountable.

Corporate profitability has more than recovered since the effects of the recession hit in 2009, with profits up 50 percent in real terms, according to Mr. Bernstein. This recovery is due in large part to the nature of the corporate world, which functions in pursuit of profit. Mr. Bernstein proposed that the function of government is to provide a working infrastructure and fiscal policy that benefits everyone, not just those in the top income brackets.

“You can’t send people to Washington who are going there to stop the place,” he said, referencing the political gridlock that led to the government shutdown in 2013. “We have to do a better job of educating people about the role of government in their lives.”

“Wealth is strangling politics,” he added. “Campaign finance is a root cause of the horrific politics that have been gripping the city and the nation for a long time.”’

2. Subsidize jobs for those experiencing long-term unemployment and consider “work-sharing” as an alternative to layoffs.

Though joblessness rates  lowered to 6.7 percent in 2014 , long-term unemployment , defined as joblessness sustained for more than 27 weeks, remains an unconquered problem, Mr. Bernstein said. He proposed that a government program that would provide subsidies to those who are employed part time could be a possible solution. The policy would need enforceable rules that would stop employers from “displacing” workers in order to hire a new worker under the subsidy program.

Mr. Bernstein also suggested “work-sharing” to reduce workers’ hours instead of laying them off . While the underused practice “spreads the pain around,” he said that it can help make up lost wages and reduce the amount of unemployment benefits paid to those who are laid off.

3. Tackle the trade deficit through more free trade and better fiscal policy.

In response to the trade deficit, Mr. Bernstein proposed using free trade to strip competitive nations with currency valued at a higher rate than the dollar, such as China, of the power to manage the currency exchange to their advantage. He said that it is more beneficial to use the market to set exchange rates, rather than a nation’s currency managers.

He also argued for less austere fiscal policy, citing the 7 percent drop in the budget deficit as a share of GDP between 2009 and 2013, the largest decline since 1950. “We went austere too quickly, which has made it harder to recover,” Mr. Bernstein said. “Fiscal policy needs to be more responsive to economic need.”

4. Pay more attention to the “erosion of labor standards” and respond.

According to Mr. Bernstein, “social justice” is too broad a term for the reforms necessary to re-establish labor standards that were once integral to an economy fueled by working America. He said that enabling legislation to increase the minimum wage, offering support for unions and providing employment benefits for workers is critical to improving the low quality of life that results from social and economic inequality .

He noted that though the American middle class is more well off than the middle class in emerging economies, such as Bangladesh, the growth rates in emerging  economies are growing somewhat faster than in the U.S., where middle income growth has remained stagnate.

“Most Americans don’t realize that there are people in China and Bangladesh that are doing better than they are right now,” he added, speaking of growth rates not real income levels.

The second forum, a discussion of the coming digital disruption and its impact on middle class jobs with Dr. Andrew McAfee of MIT, will take place on April 10th at 5:30 p.m. in Room 305 at the School of Media and Public Affairs (805 21 St. NW).

• 2020 Inequality
• Causal Factors
• Health Effects
• Philanthropy
• Student Debt
• Executive Pay
• Hidden Wealth
• Legislative Action
• Sustainability
• Faces on the Frontlines
• Historical Background
• Middle Class Squeeze
• Racial Wealth Divide
• Income Distribution
• Social Mobility
• Wall Street
• Global Struggles
• Inherited Wealth
• Wealth Concentration
• All Research & Commentary
• All Blogging Our Great Divide
• Research & Commentary
• Our Great Divide
• Inequality and Covid-19
• Income Inequality
• Wealth Inequality
• Racial Economic Inequality
• Global Inequality
• Gender Economic Inequality
• Inequality and Health
• Inequality and Taxes
• Inequality and the Care Economy
• Inequality and Philanthropy
• Inequality Weekly
• Organizations
• Inequality Quotes by Historic World Leaders
• Policy Development

Eight Ways To Reduce Global Inequality

By taxing progressively, respecting worker rights, and rethinking economics, we could make a great start at creating a more equal world.

Blogging Our Great Divide

February 11, 2015.

by Nick Galasso & Marjorie Wood

Extreme economic inequality is corrosive to our societies. It makes poverty reduction harder, hurts our economies, and drives conflict and violence. Reversing this trend presents a significant challenge, but one where we’ve seen some progress. Below we offer eight ways to move the world forward in reducing global inequality.

1. Stop Illicit Outflows

In developing countries, inadequate resourcing for health, education, sanitation, and investment in the poorest citizens drives extreme inequality. One reason is tax avoidance and other illicit outflows of cash. According to  Global Financial Integrity , developing countries lost $6.6  trillion in illicit financial flows from 2003 through 2012, with illicit outflows increasing at an average rate of 9.4 percent per year. That’s $6.6 trillion that could reduce poverty and inequality through investments in human capital, infrastructure, and economic growth.

2. Progressive Income Tax

After falling for much of the 20 th  century, inequality is worsening in rich countries today. The top one percent is not only capturing larger shares of national income, but  tax rates on the highest incomes have also dropped . How much should the highest income earners be taxed? This is obviously a question to be decided domestically by citizens, and opinions differ. For instance, economist  Tony Addison  suggests a top rate of 65 percent rate on the top 1 percent of incomes.

Global inequality

Get the facts

3. A Global Wealth Tax?

In  Capital in the Twenty-first Century  , Thomas Piketty recommends an international agreement establishing a wealth tax .  Under his plan, countries would agree to tax personal assets of all kinds at graduated rates. The  skeptics do have a point  about whether this particular plan is practical, but we shouldn’t give up on the idea. Because wealth tends to accumulate over generations, fair and well-designed wealth taxes would go a long way towards combating extreme inequality.

4. Enforce a Living Wage

Governments should establish and enforce a national living wage, and corporations should also prioritize a living wage for their workers and with the suppliers, buyers, and others with whom they do business. Low and unlivable wages are a result of worker disempowerment and concentration of wealth at the top—hallmarks of unequal societies. As human beings with basic needs, all workers should earn enough to support themselves and their families. Governments and corporations should be responsible for protecting the right to a living wage, corporations should commit to responsible behavior that respects the dignity of all workers.

5. Workers’ Right to Organize

The right of workers to organize has always been a cornerstone of more equal societies, and should be prioritized and protected wherever this basic right is violated. Extreme inequality requires the disempowerment of workers. Therefore, the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively for better pay and conditions is a global human rights priority. Despite Article 23 of the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights — which declares the right to organize as a fundamental human right—workers worldwide, including in the United States, still face intimidation, fear, and retribution for attempting to organize collectively. Where unions are strong, wages are higher and inequality is lower.

Inequality newsletter

6. Stop Other Labor Abuses

Companies worldwide are also replacing what was once permanent and stable employment with temporary and contingent labor. Often called “contingent” or “precarious” workers, these workers fill a labor need that is permanent while being denied the status of employment. In the United States, this trend is called “misclassification,” in which employers misclassify workers as “independent contractors” when they are actually employees. Contingent labor also occurs through outsourcing, subcontracting, and use of employment agencies.

7. Open and Democratic Trade Policy

Negotiating international trade agreements behind closed doors with only bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists present has to end. These old-style trade agreements are fundamentally undemocratic and put corporate profits above workers, the environment, health, and the public interest. We need a new, transparent trade policy that is open, transparent, and accountable to the people.

8.  A New Economics?

Economists are often imagined as stuffy academics who value arcane economic theory above humanitarian values. The field’s clinging to parsimonious theories gave us such winners as the Washington Consensus and a global financial system that imploded in 2008.  Thankfully, there’s a movement among economics grad students and scholars to reimagine the discipline . As they acknowledge, we clearly need a new economics that works to improve the lives of everyone, not just those already well off. For instance, what could be more radical than a Buddhist economics? This is the path promoted by economist and Rhodes Scholar E .F. Schumacher, who says humanity needs an economics that  creates  wealth  for all people, just not  money  for privileged people and corporations . Economics should take into account ethics and the environment, and treat its claims less like invariable truths.

Dr. Nick Galasso is an American Council of Learned Societies Public Fellow, serving Oxfam America as a research and policy advisor. He leads Oxfam’s work on economic inequality. Dr. Marjorie Wood is the managing editor of Inequality.org and a senior staff member of the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Inequality ,, explore more, stay informed, subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

Inequality.org   → In Your Inbox

Get the indispensable guide to the latest on our unequal world, in your inbox every Wednesday.

You can unsubscribe any time. We do not sell or share your information with others.   Click to close

• Latest news
• UCL in the media
• Services for media
• Student news
• Tell us your story

How to overcome social inequality and improve chances in life

12 September 2006

A new booklet published by the Economic & Social Research Council seeks to answer the question of why some people do better in life than others despite coming from a deprived background or having a difficult childhood.

Edited by Professor Mel Bartley (UCL Epidemiology & Public Health), the booklet, entitled 'Capability and Resilience: Beating the Odds', argues that the key element determining whether a person grows up to be successful is their resilience to life's challenges. In a social science context, 'resilience' refers to the process of overcoming disadvantages and life crises. Increasingly it is believed that resilience arises not just from the individual, but from their social and emotional environment.

The booklet argues that anyone can 'turn things around' under certain conditions. The most important of these is that they meet others who value them for themselves, recognise their strengths and talents and encourage them to use these.

For example, children from poorer backgrounds are more likely to be successful later in life if their parents show warmth and take an interest in their education, and if their teachers recognise and encourage their talents. However, the research also shows that someone from an economically disadvantaged background can only overcome this situation to a certain extent.

Professor Bartley said: "Even the brightest children from poor families at the beginning of the school years tend to sink down intellectually, to the level of the rather less bright rich children, by the age of 16. These people's talents are the most wasted by economic inequality."

The booklet finds that the reduction of material and emotional deprivation in childhood helps children to develop more secure relationships throughout their lives, and it is these relationships that enable them to overcome adversity. This finding feeds into issues currently being debated in the media, such as the work-life balance and increased parental leave. Looking at research asking whether a highly paid, high-status job is worth sacrificing family relationships for, it finds that men and women who delay starting a family to pursue a career are not more satisfied at the age of 30 than men and women in two parent-families.

The booklet was launched last week at the BA Festival of Science in Norwich, where Dr Amanda Sacker (UCL Epidemiology & Public Health) delivered a presentation entitled 'Have the hard-drinking and smoking, couch potato adolescents of yesterday become the unhealthy adults of today?' The presentation was part of a panel discussion entitled 'Beating the Odds', chaired by Professor Bartley. Also speaking at the session were Professor Ingrid Schoon, City University, and Dr Richard Mitchell, University of Edinburgh.

'Capability and Resilience' brings together research from UCL as well as Queen Mary University, University of Edinburgh, City University, University of Liverpool and Imperial College.

To find out more use the links at the bottom of this article.

Image: 'Capability and Resilience'

• 'Capability and Resilience'
• Professor Mel Bartley

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

7 Strategies to Reduce Inequalities in Education

• Published: August 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter examines how governments define and pursue education equity. There is a broad consensus that reducing unfair education inequalities would be a good thing, but also the endurance of major inequalities, particularly in relation to a highly salient ‘attainment gap’ on leaving school. There is high contestation on the cause of inequalities and the balance between individual, school, and state responsibility, but also a tendency for a ‘neoliberal’ approach to overshadow ‘social justice’ approaches in national policy agendas. In that context, this chapter examines three key aspects. First, how policymakers define and pursue education equity policy. Second, what countries and regions can learn from allegedly leading countries. Third, the spatial dimension of education equity policy, in which there is a general tendency to decentralize policy delivery but centralize accountability, and scope for some regional governments to go their own way. The conclusion relates these findings to the idea of territorial cohesion.

Introduction

This chapter examines how governments define and pursue education equity, focusing largely on early years, primary, and secondary education. Education exhibits the hallmarks of equity policies that we describe in Chapter 1 . There is a broad consensus that reducing unfair education inequalities would be a good thing, but also the long-term endurance of major inequalities. Further, there is high contestation on the cause of inequalities and the balance between individual, school, and state responsibility. There are competing notions of ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ equity (giving everyone the same opportunity to access resources, or redistributing resources), debates on equal access to schools versus equal education outcomes, and a tendency to relate equal outcomes to a threshold of attainment or ‘attainment gap’ at school leaving age.

As in HiAP studies (Chapter 6 ), ‘social justice’ approaches focus on the ‘wicked’ nature of the problem and the need for action beyond the education sector. They suggest that ‘out of school’ factors—such as parental education and income, and poverty—have more impact on unequal outcomes than schools, and call for the greater use of joined-up policy to address the underlying causes of unfair inequalities (although few use the term ‘social determinants’). In contrast, ‘neoliberal’ approaches suggest that governments can reduce attainment gaps by improving the quality of schools while reforming education systems to make them more competitive in global knowledge economies. The latter framing of the problem dominates global and domestic policy. The economic frame is promoted successfully by large philanthropies and international organizations such as the World Bank, while the school reform agenda is associated strongly with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ( Grek, 2009 : 24; 2020 ; Rizvi and Lingard, 2010 : 128–136).

As such, there is a twin-track approach to education equity, in which national governments make vague reference to social justice in education but also retain strong commitments to accountability and performance measures. Further, the latter appears to undermine equity policy: the pressure for schools to compete comes at the expense of equal access to ‘high quality’ schools, and prompts some systems or schools to segregate marginalized populations by describing them as in greater need of ‘special needs’ education.

These competing frames of education policy feed into multiple levels of policymaking. On the one hand, EU research and advice contributes somewhat to the economic agenda of the World Bank and the performance management agenda of the OECD. On the other, its rules on human rights and social inclusion have—if implemented by member states—positive implications for marginalized populations ( Alexiadou, 2019 ). At member state level, the performance management agenda creates central-local tensions. National governments tend to delegate and retain key responsibilities: decentralizing the responsibility for school delivery to local governments and schools, but centralizing accountability via national student testing and league tables of local government and school performance.

There is also some scope for regional or devolved government autonomy, such as to oversee education system design and/or modify education spending. This is particularly the case in Germany and the UK, as well as most Belgian regions (the language communities have 100% competence for education), Spanish regions, and Trentino/Province of Trento, South Tyrol/Province of Bolzano, and Valle d’Aosta in Italy ( Garritzmann et al., 2021 : 20). This autonomy produces some potential for distinctive central-local relations. For example, the devolved Scottish Government acts as a national central government that delegates school delivery to local governments while overseeing its own curriculum and measures of student performance, and it projects the sense that its central-local government relationship is more cooperative than its UK government counterpart.

To explore these issues, we focus on three key aspects. First, how do policymakers define education equity in theory and practice ? We identify the social justice and neoliberal ideas promoted by the OECD, EU, and member states. We compare how they are defined in theory with how they interact in practice, to explore a general commitment to the former but tendency for the latter to dominate. Most education research identifies a tendency to focus on equal access to education services, giving relative inattention to inequalities of outcomes, and contributing to an enduring gap between equity rhetoric and actual practices.

Second, what can governments learn from allegedly leading countries with comparable systems ? Chapter 2 describes policy learning and policy transfer as desirable but contested political processes. Policy actors learn through the lens of their beliefs and according to the dominant ways in which policymakers define problems, and they transfer policies based not only on learning but also on perceived pressure to follow international norms. In that context, while we have designed a three-question framework to facilitate learning and potential transfer, it actually helps to identify contestation and explain a gap between expectations and practices. For example, Nordic experiences (again) provide best case examples but also cautionary tales, because neoliberal agendas appear to contrast strongly with the ideas associated with Nordic welfare states. For some, these experiences reinforce the value of resisting neoliberal reforms; for others, they show why a major rethink of policy was essential.

Third, we examine the multi-level nature of education equity policy . There are two main types of spatial politics in relation to multi-level education policymaking. The first relates to the balance between the decentralization of policymaking responsibilities to local governments and schools and the impetus to centralize key aspects, such as accountability and performance management indicators. The second relates to the scope for regional autonomy in education policy, with some regions across Europe enjoying similar powers as national governments, enjoying the potential to go their own way on education equity policy. In each case, there is some evidence that local and school policymaking matters, but in the context of a strong driver towards meeting targets and staying competitive overall. Local governments also lack the powers to address the ‘out of school’ factors that are more responsible for inequalities. To explore these issues, we draw on UK and devolved government experiences, highlighting distinctive education systems and policy styles, but within a wider context of performance management (and attention to high stakes exams) that seems to limit policy divergence.

Finally, we reflect on the overall impact of problem definition and multi-level policymaking on education equity and examine how it compares with the idea of territorial cohesion . Education provides a case study of continuous contestation over problem definition. There is a tendency for neoliberal approaches to dominate but be challenged at different levels, as well as some commitment to social justice in theory but a tendency to downplay it in practice. Education therefore provides insights relevant to the EU descriptions of ‘territorial cohesion’ that focus on equal access to services.

How do policymakers define education equity? Social justice versus neoliberal approaches

Chapter 6 describes a commonly told story in HiAP research: a coherent and well-supported strategy is undermined by the wider external ‘neoliberal’ policy agenda, defined as a way of thinking that favours individualism and market over state solutions, and prioritizes economic growth. In comparison, education research describes the framing of equity policy as relatively contested ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). HiAP research externalizes neoliberalism, while education research centres it. As such, this chapter describes neoliberal and social justice approaches as in continuous interaction or competition with each other, and both are integral to policy.

To some extent, Thorius and Maxcy’s (2015 : 118) description of ‘six transformational goals’ for ‘equity-minded policy’ highlight some shared concerns about the distribution of resources, governance, efficiency, relationships with communities, improvement, and ‘explicit emphases on equity’. However, social justice and neoliberal lenses provide different ways to understand and deliver such aims, and contrasting answers to contextual questions such as:

What is the main purpose of education ? As part of an economic narrative in which education is preparation for work, or a social narrative in which education fosters student emancipation, wellbeing, and life opportunities ( Faul, 2014 ; Vongalis-Macrow, 2010 ).

Who should deliver education ? State regulated quasi-market models are replacing traditional state-funded and delivered models. New models combine state and private school provision with market-incentive initiatives such as school vouchers (to extend state funding to non-state schools) and parental choice regarding where to send their child (‘school choice’).

What is the role of the state? Horizontal and vertical approaches to equity. ‘Horizontal equity is concerned with providing equal treatment and provisions to all schools and students whereas vertical equity is concerned with ensuring that students with greatest needs or in disadvantaged conditions will receive more resources’ ( Chu, 2019 : 5). The former relates inequalities to individual motivation and ‘merit’ and requires only equal access to schools or opportunities to learn. The latter relates inequalities to social determinants, requiring greater state support to foster more equitable outcomes. The state can intervene modestly to ensure a threshold of attainment, or maximally to redistribute (a) income and wealth or (b) education resources, to reduce geographical inequalities or pursue a greater equality of outcomes in relation to attainment ( Gilead, 2019 : 439; Bulkley, 2013 ).

These different answers inform the two main international agendas that have an impact on EU, national, and subnational policy ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ; Faul, 2014 ; Klees and Qargha, 2014 ). One describes a social justice and social inclusion narrative. Social justice is akin to the social determinants approach in Chapter 6 , focusing on the ‘out of school’ factors—such as parental education and income, socio-economic conditions, or the marginalization of minority groups—that influence the ability to learn, and encouraging redistribution or more resources for marginalized students. Social inclusion describes a series of initiatives promoted by organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization ( UNESCO, 2021a ; 2021b; 2021c ) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to:

treat education as a human right;

challenge marginalization in relation to ‘sex, ethnic/social origin, language, religion, nationality, economic condition, ability’;

boost gender equity in relation to access to schools;

foster early years education;

take forward the UN Sustainable Development Goal 4 to ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’.

A second approach describes an economic narrative, identifying the role of education to boost human capital and economic competitiveness in a global knowledge economy. International organizations (most notably the World Bank), major philanthropies, and donor countries such as the US are most associated with this approach. It uses access to schools as a measure of equity, and student testing data to measure education outcomes, as part of a general promotion of new public management (NPM) measures of performance (of teachers, schools, and education systems), the role of the private sector in education provision, and quasi-market mechanisms and incentives to encourage competition between schools.

While vocational, further education (FE) and higher education (HE) are a less visible part of either agenda; there are equivalent narratives on more equal access to post-secondary learning via major expansions in capacity, often connected to regional equality agendas ( Pinheiro et al., 2016 ; Pinheiro and Antonowicz, 2015 ).

The role of the OECD: transcending neoliberal and social justice approaches?

The OECD has an unusually wide remit that transcends this social justice/neoliberal dichotomy. Its coherent description of both approaches to equity suggests that, in theory , they are not necessarily mutually exclusive ( OECD, 2008 ; 2012 ; Field et al., 2007 ; Levin, 2003 ; compare with Haugen, 2011 ). For example, it describes the ‘lack of fairness’ caused by the enduring and highly unequal impact of ‘socioeconomic background’ on school completion and attainment ( OECD, 2012 : 9), and identifies cross-sectoral working and supportive social security as essential: ‘education policies need to be aligned with other government policies, such as housing or welfare, to ensure student success’ ( 2012 : 10). Further, multiple reports describe equity in relation to opportunity and inclusion arguing that everyone should have the chance to receive good education, social background should not obstruct education potential, and the costs of inequalities are both individual (relating to income and citizenship) and social (including economic, public service, and democratic costs) ( OECD, 2008 : 2; 2012 : 3; Field et al., 2007 : 33). In that context, the OECD supports reforms to encourage:

an equitable distribution of budgets in relation to regional disparities and each stage of education, emphasizing high quality early education and free or reduced-fee compulsory education, rather than funding higher education ( OECD, 2012 : 3–11; 117–8; 2008 : 5; 2015 ; Field et al., 2007 : 23; 122–126);

multiculturalism and antiracism via curriculum reform, language training for immigrant students, and rejecting measures such as ‘tracking’ (segregating students by alleged ability) at an early age ( OECD, 2008 : 2; Field et al., 2007 : 150–151; 20);

school governance to ‘ help disadvantaged schools and students improve ’, including financial incentives and training to redistribute teacher provision, discourage lower teacher expectations for marginalized students, and form more meaningful relationships with their parents or guardians ( OECD, 2012 : 11–12; 2008 : 5; Field et al., 2007 : 19).

Nevertheless, among education academics, OECD influence tends to be associated with the neoliberal approach ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). This perception results partly from OECD attempts to combine elements from two narratives, such as when:

relating inequitable outcomes to a combination of ‘deprived backgrounds’ and ‘weak schooling’ ( Field et al., 2007 : 26);

arguing that school governance and performance, coupled with an equitable distribution of school resources, can address the social determinants of education inequalities ( OECD, 2012 : 9; 3; 2008 : 2; 6–7; 2015 : 1–2; Field et al., 2007 : 22; 39);

emphasizing individual motivation when describing the need to exploit equal opportunities to learn ( Levin, 2003 : 5)

presenting a working definition of equitable outcomes—everyone should reach a minimum standard of education or training at school leaving age—as ‘workable’ in relation to the context of neoliberal approaches ( Levin, 2003 : 5; Field et al., 2007 : 31; 46–51).

The OECD’s role in performance management and evaluation, via PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), is largely the reason that it has become so associated with neoliberalism. The OECD uses PISA to gauge the knowledge and skills—e.g. in reading or mathematics—of 15 year old students in participating countries (the 2018 exercise focused on reading in 79 countries). Participating students complete a test to gauge how they use their knowledge in everyday life and a questionnaire to establish their social and economic background (OECD, 2021). PISA’s focus on lifelong learning is also part of a wider narrative of individual motivation and responsibility ( Grek, 2009 : 27).

The OECD proposes that governments use PISA results to reflect on their schools’ and education system’s performance, such as to identify unequal early-dropout rates and attainment at school leaving age, and ‘give strong support to those schools with weak results’ ( OECD, 2008 : 7; Field et al.,2007 : 23–24). However, there is a wider tendency for governments and commentators to use the results crudely, focusing on international league tables to identify good and bad country performance, often prompting lagging countries to pursue NPM reforms to catch up, and crude league tables of good versus bad schools that emphasize competition and do not take into account the socioeconomic composition of each school ( Field et al., 2007 : 131).

As such, PISA contributes to politically salient debates on the relationship between economic growth/competitiveness and school performance, underpinned by the idea that we can quantify and compare the relative performance of each country’s education system ( Rizvi and Lingard, 2010 : 133–136; Grek, 2009 : 27). This process is part of a wider ‘governing by numbers’ effect, associated with the ‘effect that numbers have in bringing together national and organizational storylines on the status of education’ ( Grek, 2020 : 140–141; 146; see also Lawn, 2011 ; Lingard, 2011 ; Ozga et al., 2011 ; Ozga, 2017 ; Spillane, 2012 ).

The EU approach to education equity: performance versus inclusion?

The EU does not have the power to design or deliver education systems directly. However, it contributes to the global economic agenda that extends well beyond the nation state, while its focus on the human rights implications of education (to challenge discrimination and ensure the equal distribution of high value public goods) gives it an influential role ( Alexiadou, 2017 : 112–115).

EU-driven research and policy reflects the global picture in which economic and social justice ideas interact, with the potential for the former to undermine the latter. The European Commission (2006 : 2) describes equity as the extent to which (1) ‘individuals can take advantage of education and training, in terms of opportunities, access, treatment and outcomes’, and (2) ‘the outcomes of education and training are independent of socio-economic background’. Further, it describes equity policy as a cross-sectoral initiative ‘to link education and training policies with those related to employment, the economy, social inclusion, youth, health, justice, housing and social services’, and fosters policy ‘to correct regional imbalances in education and training’ ( 2006 : 4). This definition relates primarily to an economics lens, describing the role of equity in human capital investment, to aid (a) ‘competitiveness’, economic growth, and taxable income, and (b) ‘social cohesion’, political participation, population health, and reduced crime ( European Commission, 2006 : 2; Woessmann and Schuetz, 2006 : 2–9). In that context, education should be ‘both efficient and equitable’ ( 2006 : 2).

  Efficiency is the best time to invest in human capital:

using the famous ‘Heckman curve’ to support the earliest possible investment in high quality education (by well-trained teachers using evidence-informed methods), particularly for ‘children from low socio-economic background’;

noting the inequity of higher education investment, since participation is limited and the tax system does not offset their higher earnings, and;

noting the public and private underinvestment in vocational education and training (VET) despite its value as a second chance at equity ( 2006 : 4–5; Woessmann and Schuetz, 2006 : 10–14).

Equity relates to two elements:

Human capital . Low investment in education reforms now means lower productivity later, since existing systems exacerbate inequalities in relation to the socio-economic challenges—including globalization, digital economies, demographic change (ageing, migration), and labour market changes—that affect low-skilled people with a basic education ( European Commission, 2006 : 3).

The governance of schools and education systems . Member states have decentralized key aspects of school governance, which requires a parallel commitment to centralized accountability and distributional measures—such as standardized formal examinations to monitor attainment outcomes, evaluations of school progress, and motivating the most experience and skilled teachers ‘into the most challenging schools’—to ‘avoid the potentially inequitable local consequences of decentralized decisions’ ( 2006 : 6–7). Woessmann and Schuetz (2006 : 16; 20; 31) also describe the potential value of competition between state and private schools (accompanied by school choice and voucher schemes), public-private partnerships, and performance-related pay.

In that context, critical commentary describes the relative inattention to social justice. Demeuse et al.’s (2007 : iii) report for the European Parliament criticizes Commission work for:

Its narrow definition of equity . It conflates (a) equality of opportunity to access education (the potential for equal outcomes) and (b) ‘actual equality of access, treatment and results’. It does not identify a minimum threshold of achievement to which everyone is entitled. It uses the term equity, but does not ‘define unfair inequalities in education’ or ‘make a statement on the model of fairness’. It focuses narrowly on socio-economic inequality, which does not acknowledge the role of gender, race, ethnicity, or disability.

  Its problematic discussion of efficiency . It presupposes ‘agreement on an ideal relationship between the investments and the results’ in a field where preferred outcomes are contested ( 2007 : iii).

Its call for a market of competing schools . ‘A market of more and more diversified schools is a vector for social segregation’, exacerbated by implicit and explicit mechanisms of self—and external selection, and by the inequality of school choices when there is high local autonomy ( 2007 : iv–v; see also EGREES, 2005 on measuring education inequalities across the EU).

Hippe et al.’s (2016 : 5) updates to Commission work recognize these criticisms to some extent, such as by paying more attention to gender, immigration, and regional disparities ( Braga et al., 2013 : 73). However, they largely maintain the original definition of equity in relation to schools and focus on school quality and performance as the main vehicle for equity, recommending that:

school systems foster ‘autonomy coupled with accountability’ and ‘competition sponsored by public funding’ (without encouraging ‘tracking’ to segregate students according to predicted attainment);

teachers receive ‘rewards for their performance’ (while recognizing that the evidence is mixed on teacher quality);

initiatives such as school choice can boost performance via competition (but exacerbate inequality via segregation) ( Hippe et al., 2016 : 9; 14–20; drawing on Braga et al., 2013 : 51–54).

One rationale for this neoliberal focus is the political context: redistributional policies could address head-on the relationship between income and education attainment, but remain ‘controversial’ and less amenable to public policy; and, policies to foster equal ‘opportunities’ to access high quality education would be more popular ( 2016 : 7). Therefore, like the OECD, the Commission highlights the profound impact of socio-economic background on education outcomes in each country’s education systems, but primarily:

relates equity to a minimum threshold of (a) good education and (b) attainment when leaving school. For example, Eurydice (2020 : 42) measures each system’s achievement gaps between highest and lowest performing students, compared with the proportion categorized as ‘low achievers’ (the ‘least inclusive education systems’ have large attainment gaps and high percentages of ‘low achievers’);

focuses policy recommendations on increased spending (particularly on early years and primary provision), school governance , and distributional measures , to provide targeted support for ‘disadvantaged schools’ that enrol ‘high proportions of students from low socio-economic backgrounds’ ( Eurydice, 2020 : 13–19).

Overall, the EU oversees policymaking in which social justice agendas are rhetorically important and often enshrined in regulations, but difficult to find in the strategies or practices of member states. This general picture is also a feature of European Commission analysis of member states.

From EU policy to EU analysis of member states

Eurydice’s (2020) analysis of education systems in EU member states (and some regions) reinforces the finding that governments combine vague rhetorical support for education equity with specific OECD-style initiatives. Some education systems do not have an ‘official top-level definition’ of education equity (‘Bulgaria, Germany, Cyprus, Switzerland, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Norway, and Turkey’) while most make some kind of reference to equity in policy documents without ‘having a formal or explicit definition of equity in education or related concepts’ ( 2020 : 50–52). There is also wide variety in the use of terminology, including who defines what:

Five education systems (Denmark, Malta, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden) refer to equity, but not to disadvantage, while for others (Belgium—Flemish Community, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, the United Kingdom—England, Wales and Northern Ireland) it is the other way around, that is, they refer to educational disadvantage, but not to educational equity. A few, namely Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, the United Kingdom (Scotland) … have defined both concepts (2020: 50).

Of the systems declaring an equity goal, Eurydice (2020 : 50–51) identifies a variety of approaches, including: a general statement of fairness (in Malta, ‘the education of each student is of equal importance’); connecting equity to merit and motivation (in Estonia, ‘equal educational opportunities commensurate with their abilities’), or; emphasizing socio-economic inequalities (Denmark emphasizes reducing ‘the significance of social background with regard to academic results’) and reducing attainment gaps (in Scotland, ‘closing the poverty-related attainment gap … by ensuring every child has the same opportunity to succeed’).

This variety extends to defining a ‘disadvantaged student’. Examples include students: with low cultural, linguistic, financial, and/or social capital (Belgium, Flemish Community); in a disadvantaged ‘social, economic, cultural, ethnic or geographic’ situation (Spain); who are ‘at risk of social exclusion such as immigrants and children with special educational needs’ (Lithuania); ‘from rural, social-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, Roma children and students with special education needs’ at highest risk of dropping out or repeating a school year (Romania), or; entitled to free school meals (a proxy for low income) (UK). In some cases, disadvantage connects strongly to ‘special needs’ and ‘inclusive’ education, widening its definition beyond a specific focus on mental or physical disabilities towards including socio-economic, cultural, or linguistic barriers to learning (e.g. in Greece and Italy) (2020: 52).

These rather general understandings of equity and unfair disadvantage feed into a range of initiatives to ‘address low achievement or underperformance among students’, often to focus specifically on a threshold of performance to ‘reduce the numbers leaving education or training early or without a formal qualification’ (2020: 52–53). They include strategies to: provide additional support for students from ‘migrant backgrounds’ or compensate for ‘a lack of student support at home’ (Germany); ensure that ‘disadvantaged students will be more evenly distributed among schools’ (Spain, Hungary); increase ‘school choice’ by expanding provision, and centralize the ‘allocation of resources for student support’ (Luxembourg); oblige school attendance from age 3, and introduce an ‘early warning system’ for students at risk of leaving school without achieving a ‘baseline performance’ (Hungary); defer the choice of school or vocational ‘pathway’ until age 14 (Netherlands), and; give greater financial and school support to ‘students from a disadvantaged socio-economic background, including Roma children, children living in rural areas, and also children with special education needs’ (Romania) (2020: 54).

The impact of neoliberalism on social justice approaches

Education research, on global and domestic agendas, describes the uneasy coexistence between competing approaches to education equity ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). Hajisoteriou and Angelides (2020) describe global policymaking as two-headed. One helps to produce ‘global policies of social justice and equity’ and ‘may play a substantial role in the development of minority and immigrant rights, while also moving citizenship debates beyond the idea of the nation state’ (2020: 278; 282). Another fosters benchmarking, privatization, and NPM to produce policies including ‘school-based management, teachers’ accountability, public-private partnerships and conditional fund-transfer schemes’ (2020: 277). Further, ‘Market oriented education seems to overrule policy reforms aiming to achieve equity in education … [producing] educational policies preoccupied with efficiency, “excellence”, “standards” and “accountability”’ (2020: 282; 277).

Most articles in Cairney and Kippin’s (2021) review suggest that the economic narrative dominates international and domestic policy agendas and undermines social justice policies. There is high rhetorical support to address unfair inequalities, but not at the expense of economic development or competitiveness. Equity relates primarily to minimum standards: to promote equal access to sufficiently high quality schools and teachers, and equal opportunities to achieve a threshold of attainment when leaving school. Further, the competition to provide and receive ‘high quality’ teaching guarantees unequal access (often accompanied by advice for parents on how to compete for places— Exley, 2009 : 254).

Case study examples relate these dynamics to country-level experiences in which vague equity strategies do not change social inclusion practices, and are undermined by greater commitment to neoliberal reforms (e.g. Grimaldi, 2012 on Italy; Simmie, 2012 on Ireland; Teasley, 2020 on early years education in Spain). For example, in Cyprus, a general focus on equal access to schools, combined with vagueness in government aims (to respect ‘diversity and cultural, linguistic and religious pluralism’) ensures that schools reproduce ‘cultural domination, non-recognition and disrespect’ and do not adapt their equity policies to the social background or cultural practices of marginalized: ‘it appears that policy-makers themselves do not value their own policy rhetoric for social justice, thus failing to get schools to take such policy priorities seriously’ (Hajisoteriou and Angelides, 2014: 159; 168). This lack of progress is part of a more general commitment to ‘neoliberal policy imperatives’ at the expense of attention to ‘issues of difference and diversity’ ( Liasidou and Symeou, 2018 : 151).

Studies also relate the neoliberal/social justice tension to the impacts on particular social groups, such as in relation to gender, minority ethnicity, and immigration.

Education equity and gender

Vaughan’s (2019 : 494–496) discussion of financial support for gender-based education equity identifies the potential to focus on social inclusion (such as to challenge violence against women and girls) in the context of a neoliberal policymaking environment. There are new opportunities for women’s rights groups to influence policy (2019: 500–508), but not to shift dominant economic frames of equity supported by ‘multilaterals, bilateral agencies, national governments, and, more recently, private sector organizations’ (2019: 494). These organizations measure ‘gender disparities in access, attendance, completion, and achievement’, drawing ‘heavily on human capital perspectives concerned with the economic significance of getting girls into school, particularly in terms of poverty reduction’ (2019: 509; 496). They do not favour the development of alternative approaches, such as ‘capabilities’ approaches that foster learning environments (a) more tailored to students’ needs and (b) more able to empower them to learn when they are subject to differences in power, culture, and resources ( Wahlström, 2014 ; Molla and Gale, 2015 ).

Education equity and the Roma minority

Alexiadou (2019 : 427–428) identifies the mixed impact of neoliberal and social justice approaches in relation to ‘the Roma minority in Europe’, in a context of (a) ‘high absenteeism and alienation’ and early school leaving among Roma students, even when (b) EU actors such as the Commission are committed to addressing the problem ( Alexiadou, 2019 : 423). On the one hand, EU member states are potentially subject to legal sanctions if they do not fulfil their legal and human rights obligation to promote ‘equality of outcomes’ in relation to Roma students (2019: 425–432). On the other, the strategically-worded ‘on paper’ strategies by states and regions may never leave the page. National or subnational governments can subvert these aims by using, for example, their ‘special needs’ categorization to segregate and discriminate against Roma students. Three common measures are:

using linguistic, psychological, and pedagogic tests—and socio-economic disadvantage—to describe proportionately more Roma children as in need of ‘preparation opportunities to enter mainstream education’ (the listing of language and cultural barriers as disabilities also features in studies of ‘the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, and Japan’— Chong, 2018 : 502);

providing low quality education in those classes, which limit progression to mainstream education, and/or;

boosting school choice to attend allegedly higher quality schools outside of a local area, which requires resources to access and attend schools.

Education equity and immigration

There is rather mixed research on the impact of EU rules on the education of immigrant students. Schlicht-Schmälzle and Möller’s (2012 : 1046) quantitative comparison of West European states finds a strong relationship between unequal educational attainment in mathematics in the PISA 2006 assessment and immigration. However, curiously, a government’s greater commitment to ‘EU standards of good practice’ (‘educational programmes for migrant children and anti-discrimination policies’ to enable ‘equal participation in the education system and to gain the same achievements as their native counterparts’) is associated with higher inequality (2012: 1049; 1056). Further, the only countries that exhibit minimal inequalities are the (majoritarian) UK and Ireland, which challenges the argument that consensus democracies are ‘kinder’ and more conducive to equal outcomes (2012: 1056). Rather, they ‘enable the representation of large minorities in the political process’ (2012: 1060–1061, countering Lijphart, 1999 ).

Intentional and unintentional barriers to equity policies

While these examples vary in focus, a common approach is to (1) juxtapose the relatively low commitment to social justice strategies and high commitment to the neoliberal policies, often to show that (2) the latter undermines the former. The rhetoric of equitable access to services intentionally or unintentionally undermines attention to social justice agendas and the social determinants of inequalities. A tendency towards ‘equity for all’ strategies without specific support for marginalized populations, combined with quasi-market competition to segregate marginalized students, exacerbates the ‘achievement gap’ related strongly to minoritization and the social determinants of education (e.g. Gorard, 2018 ; Felix and Fernandez Castro, 2018 ; Reid, 2017 ). Further, governments prioritize education system performance in relation to the economy or to high stakes exams, often at the expense of attention to equity.

As the following section suggests, Nordic experiences illustrate key aspects of this argument, since research describes a shift away from social justice—associated with social democracy, universalist welfare states, and comprehensive schooling—towards neoliberal approaches to education.

What can governments learn from each other?

Chapter 2 provides a contrast between the pursuit versus the explanation of policy learning and policy transfer processes. The former would use our three-question framework to identify success stories, the evidence for their success, and their applicability to an importing government’s context. The latter would examine how actors learn through the lens of dominant ways to define problems, and transfer policies to address pressure to follow international norms. For example, Rizvi and Lingard (2010 : 80–91; 121–122) describe how governments import ideas (on human capital and the global knowledge economy), techniques (NPM), and programmes (the privatization of education and promotion of school choice), without evidence that they improve outcomes.

In that context, we use this framework to set up a brief comparison of Nordic experiences whose lessons are highly contested.

What story do policymakers tell about the problem they seek to solve?

The neoliberal/social justice comparison suggests that policymakers are often telling very different stories about their overall aims, and there are multiple aspects to each aim. As such, questions regarding neoliberal reforms could include: how did this government achieve a high or low PISA ranking, or adopt new central accountability measures to address concerns with decentralization? Social justice questions could include: how did this government deliver social inclusion measures for marginalized students, or design an effective and inclusive early years education system? However, since both agendas exist simultaneously, more meaningful questions would examine how governments were able to balance competing aims or ensure that, say, national performance management measures did not undermine local government and school inclusion agendas. For example, how did Finland maintain an effective comprehensive education system while its neighbours felt more pressure to reform?

Põder et al. (2013) show how such tensions between policy aims may be incorporated in pragmatic research. On the one hand, they use evidence from 28 European countries (and Nordic countries in particular) to describe the absence of school choice and tracking measures as most likely to produce equitable (and efficient) outcomes (2013: 24). On the other, they accept the likelihood that school choice measures serve a political and ideological purpose—‘indicating that the state’s role has shifted from redistribution to empowerment, responsibility and respect’—and are here to stay (2013: 25). In that context, ‘the question is not whether to tolerate choice or not, but rather how to minimize the harm caused by choice policies’, such as to highlight ‘good choice models—Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, and Ireland’ (2013: 25).

What is the evidence for one government’s success?

We are unlikely to find straightforward evidence of success when approaches to equity are so contested. Rather, governments have a general incentive to provide selective evidence of their successful neoliberal reforms, while critical education research challenges their claims and identifies the adverse consequences of neoliberal reforms on education inequalities ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). In other words, governments are describing their race to the top, while their critics decry their race to the bottom, and both interpret new evidence through the lens of those beliefs ( DeBray et al., 2014 ).

Do they have comparable political and policymaking systems?

Our use of Nordic country experiences demonstrates considerable problems regarding the comparability of experience. To some extent, describing experiences of countries with similar backgrounds helps to extract and compare lessons in a systematic way, but subject to limited information about their policymaking contexts (as opposed to their—far more knowable—political system rules). However, most other countries have limited comparability with Nordic countries. As such, any discussion of country experiences provides ideas to discuss in reference to different situations rather than blueprints for emulation.

In that context, Nordic experiences are often described as best case examples and cautionary tales because new neoliberal agendas contrast strongly with older ideas associated with Nordic welfare states built on social democratic values, trust and social capital, their maintenance of comprehensive education systems, and their tendency to decentralize policy to municipal governments without highly centralized accountability measures ( Chong, 2018 : 502; Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). This general narrative suggests that, while Nordic approaches to education are under threat, experiences vary, with Finland largely retaining its system but Scandinavian countries undergoing major change.

Finland’s maintenance of a comprehensive system

Finland has an international reputation for pursuing equity via lifelong learning and a comprehensive schooling system (staffed by well-paid and respected teachers), supported by a Nordic welfare state ( Niemi and Isopahkala-Bouret, 2015 ; Lingard, 2010 : 139–140; Grek, 2009 : 28; 33). Equity means ‘minimizing the influence of social class, gender, or ethnicity on educational outcomes’ while making sure that everyone achieves a threshold of basic education and skills via: ‘active social investment through universal early childhood education’; ‘a comprehensive education model’ in which every school has a near-identical standard, and; ‘the provision of support to lower-performing or at-risk students’ ( Chong, 2018 : 502–505).

Consequently, Finland has enjoyed praise from (1) the OECD for investing early, avoiding tracking, minimizing the number of people leaving school without adequate skills, and maintaining a high PISA ranking ( Field et al., 2007 : 26; Møller, 2017 : 377), and (2) from education researchers welcoming its resistance to neoliberal, market-based reforms that foster individualism and competition ( Chong, 2018 : 502–505). However, this praise is not uniform. For example, Zilliacus et al. (2017 : 232) contrast Finland’s reputation with its historic favouring of national integration and ‘othering’ of immigrant populations, and only recently pivoting to ‘support cultural diversity and social justice as well as counter marginalization and discrimination in education and society’.

Finland’s contrast with Sweden, Norway, and Denmark

Sweden’s attempts to recentralize accountability, manage a quasi-market of state and private schools, and emphasize equal access to high quality schools, provides the biggest departure from the old Nordic ideal ( Pettersson et al., 2017 : 732; Camphuijsen et al., 2020 : 12–14; Varjo et al., 2018 ; Wahlström, 2014 ). As such, Sweden has an education system that is simultaneously committed unusually strongly to equity as a value, and pursuing policies that undermine it ( Andreasson et al., 2015 : 267–268).

Varjo et al. (2018: 481; 483) compare how Finnish and Swedish local education authorities deal with the pressure to adopt neoliberal approaches that combine decentralization, market-based reforms, and quasi-market incentives such as school choice policies. In Finland, decentralization is in the context of the maintenance of comprehensive schooling and no tradition of ‘mandatory national testing … school inspections and school league tables’ (2018: 486). School assessments remain unpublished to prevent media stories of the ‘weakest’ schools (2018: 489). In contrast, Swedish governments:

encouraged a larger private sector: in 2015, 26% of students attended government-subsidized private schools, with a marked spread by geography (50% in large cities, 3% in rural areas) and class (55% in highest and 5% in lowest socio-economic decile);

fostered school choice via vouchers for students, which contributed to competition between state and private schools (2018: 486–489). There is also evidence of rural student commutes to cities but not the other way, prompting some rural schools to sell themselves as more welcoming to local immigrant populations (2018: 490–491);

contributed to tensions between the trust in versus audit of teachers in Sweden when checking how fairly they grade national student tests ( Novak and Carlbaum, 2017 : 673). The choice to introduce an inspectorate and regrading programme contributed to a government and media narrative on ‘teachers’ assessments as incorrect, unfair, and as jeopardizing the credibility of the grading system, thus justifying increased central control and authority over teacher assessments’ (2017: 673; Wahlström, 2014 ).

Camphuijsen et al. (2020 : 4) identify comparable developments of ‘test-based accountability (TBA)’ in Norway, which previously seemed ‘immune’ to neoliberal agendas since it maintained a social democratic welfare state and comprehensive education system with strict limits on private schools and school choice (over 96% of students attend state schools— Nortvedt, 2018 : 433). Indeed, while an OECD report in 1988 questioned its ability to hold a decentralized school system to account, reforms were largely resisted by ‘key political actors, parliamentarians and the main teacher’s union’ (2020: 5). Things changed following the ‘PISA shock’: poor performances in PISA 2000 and 2003 ruined Norway’s self-image as ‘the best school in the world’, highlighted inequitable outcomes, and showed that 17% of students left school without basic competencies (2020: 7). The reform-push coincided with rising NPM and outcome-based management (encouraged by the OECD) (2020: 12).

In Denmark, Engsig and Johnstone (2015 : 472) identify the contradictions of educational ‘inclusion’ policies with two different aims: (1) social inclusion and student experience (the UNESCO model, adapting to students), and (2) mainstreaming in public education coupled with an increased focus on excellence and quality, via high stakes student testing to meet targets (the US model, requiring students to adapt). In that context, they argue that the focus on student testing to aid performance management, coupled with a reduction in funding per student, was ‘directly inspired’ by US policy (2015: 472).

Contested lessons from Nordic (and wider European) experiences

To some extent, these experiences provide practical lessons for governments and education researchers. For example, Finland has been in a unique position of receiving praise by social justice advocates and the OECD. As such, a common question may be: how does Finland maintain its education system despite pressure to respond to a global neoliberal agenda? However, the lessons learned by other governments are highly contested. For some, Finland’s experience shows other countries that neoliberal reforms can be resisted without major adverse consequences for its international image, and that policy continuity helps avoid the unintended consequences of reforms on education equity. For others, poor international performances by Scandinavian education systems necessitated a major rethink of policy and a need to catch-up with many other countries (a ‘lesson’ also taken by many European countries or systems, including France and England— Power and Frandji, 2010 : 394).

Further, these experiences reinforce a tendency in empirical studies to highlight the role of external agendas in policy change. Almost all of these developments relate not to a voluntary lesson-drawing process (such as described by Rose, 2005 ), but rather the perceived pressure to respond to neoliberal agendas and poor performances in international benchmarking exercises. In that sense, Nordic experiences provide extreme examples of wider trends in Europe. For example, Grimaldi (2012 : 1135) shows that, in Italy, neoliberal reforms were described by key supporters as, ‘the Anglo-Saxon ones’, describing countries that ‘have high quality performances, thanks to systems based on a strong culture of evaluation and responsibility’ and viewing equity through the lens of economic policy.

While such neoliberal global and national agendas are pervasive, their impact varies markedly ( Apple, 2001 ; Rizvi and Lingard, 2010 : 42). ‘Generic solutions’ are translated and transformed in local contexts ( Ball, 1998 : 126–127). Borrowing from PISA leaders takes place if a lesson ‘fits their own domestic policy agenda’, and comes with the need to translate into local contexts ( Steiner-Khamsi, 2014 : 154; 2012: 4; Vandenbroeck, 2007 ). For example, Nortvedt (2018 : 427; 437–438) argues that, while there was some attention to the ‘PISA shock’ in Norway, policymakers used it largely to reinforce policy changes already in progress, while maintaining a relatively decentralized education system. More generally, varying levels of national government indifference to international benchmarks suggests that ‘international studies like PISA are often used merely to validate existing policy directions’ (2018: 431). The time it takes to borrow also varies markedly, particularly if countries rely on international organization funding to make it happen, thus highlighting a major difference between policy transfer as a commitment and as an implemented reform ( Steiner-Khamsi, 2006 : 674; Rizvi, 2016 : 5).

How would governments learn?

As Chapters 2 and 3 show, multi-level and multi-sectoral policy learning is easier said than done. To demonstrate, we follow Chapter 6 in using an illustrative example to ask an ostensibly simple question: how would policymakers in Finland and Ireland share lessons from comparable experiences?

Finland is often treated as the exporting country, as a world-leading education system in terms of attainment, equity, and lifelong learning, supported by a generous social welfare state, and showing that coherent policy is possible ( Grek, 2009 : 28; 33; Lingard, 2010 : 139–140; Niemi and Isopahkala-Bouret, 2015 ). Table 7.1 , shows the distribution of relevant policy instruments. Competences are distributed widely across tiers of government, and across different agencies at the national level. Different organizations carry out functions such as curriculum development and monitoring spending. Strong roles are evident for regional councils, which play a coordination role and support local and national education efforts, and local government, responsible for the running of schools, aspects of their funding, interpretation of curricula ( Helsinki-Uusima Regional Council, 2020 ), and indirect competences such as over local care services and youth service provision.

Our preliminary research also highlighted the perception within policy communities in Ireland that its equity policies showed substantive progress ( Cairney et al., 2018 ). As such, it may seek to export and import lessons. However, which organizations would lead processes of policy learning? The Ireland-Finland comparison is instructive since their multi-level responsibilities differ markedly (see Table 7.2 ). For example, the Irish system grants most powers to the national level, including formal competences over compulsory and higher education systems. National agencies also play a role in school inspection and quality assurance. A key role accrues at the regional level in the shape of regional Education and Training Boards (ETBs), which manage several types of schools and FE colleges. An approach to pursue a social justice equity strategy in Ireland, focused on equitable funding, inclusivity, and diversity, and resisting neoliberal reforms, would need to be directed from the national level. If so, mutual cross-country learning on policy would also require learning about their differences in policymaking.

Multi-level policymaking: centralization and decentralization

Chapter 2 describes a broad tension between two often-contradictory policymaking aims:

to centralize . To prioritize a common purpose, directed from a single authority and formalized in multiple levels of government, expecting fidelity to a general aim of reducing unfair inequalities.

to decentralize . To prioritize the legitimacy of multiple forms of governance, directed by local policy actors in collaboration with stakeholders and communities to make sense of policy aims, expecting that the results will be different from a central agenda.

In education, most ‘neoliberal’ attention to this dynamic relates to centralized accountability and performance management. For example, Eurydice’s (2020 : 13–19) review of education equity policies across Europe identifies the same governance and performance indicators highlighted by the OECD (2012) , including the extent to which education systems:

avoid harmful academic segregation, such as via tracking and a too-early age at which students enter academic or vocational pathways (2020: 16; 125);

find alternatives to students repeating an entire grade (2020: 22; 142–143);

avoid school selection processes based too much on academic performance (rather than residence) (2020: 117; 130–132);

manage school autonomy to foster the positive effects of decentralization while avoiding ‘a hierarchization of schools, which can have detrimental effect on equity’ (particularly when a system has a high proportion of private autonomous schools) (2020: 15; 152).

Social justice approaches may devote their primary focus to the policy instruments that remain a national government (or EU) responsibility, including taxing and spending to redistribute resources, or regulations to protect human rights and challenge discrimination (Chapter 3 ). However, there is some international research attention being paid to the classic focus on ‘top down’ versus ‘bottom up’ approaches to policy change ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). In particular, a recurring theme is the extent to which local policy actors can reinforce or subvert national priorities, or take responsibility for the equity issues that national governments do not prioritize ( Molla and Gale, 2019 ). In other words, is central or local direction more conducive to social justice approaches to equity?

Studies of the United States context (a disproportionately large source of international lessons) suggest that both levels of government provide insufficient impetus for social justice reforms: school or school district leaders need (but do not receive) strong federal support to overcome local parental opposition to policy change, or local leaders respond primarily to the high stakes federal neoliberal policies at the expense of low stakes efforts to target racism or minoritization ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ; Michener, 2019 ). Although an extreme case, it is difficult to find studies of EU countries that contradict its general findings, or even describe how governments use national financial or regulatory powers in practice. Rather, a general finding in education research is that policy change is more apparent on paper than practice at national and local levels. Country governments express rhetorical support for a multi-faceted approach to improving education equity, but generally without saying which policy instruments they will use. At the same time, tracking and other inequitable local practices endure despite widespread criticism from organizations such as the OECD.

The ability of regional or devolved governments to manage education policy

Some regions across Europe enjoy similar powers as national governments, and therefore the potential to go their own way on education equity policy. Does this delegation of policymaking responsibility make a difference, such as by challenging the dispiriting lack of equity policy progress that we describe? Under specific circumstances, there are two reasons to think so.

First, Garritzmann et al. (2021 : 3; 7–11) explore the idea that regional autonomy combined with a left-wing government in office can make a difference, based on the hypotheses that (1) ‘leftwing parties increase public education spending, because education can contribute to upward mobility, foster equality of opportunities, and decrease educational and socio-economic inequalities’, and (2) ‘the more authority over education is decentralized to the regional level, the more the ideological standing of the regional governments matter’. They find that left-wing governments are more likely to increase education spending, not only at a national level but also in regions with significant powers. As such, if a left-wing government is in office, the European countries most open to regional government impacts are Germany and the UK, followed by all Swiss, most Belgian, and a few Italian regions (2021: 20).

Second, regional or devolved governments may pursue policymaking styles that improve central-local relations. This idea of distinctive ‘territorial policy communities’ and devolved government policy styles is a regular feature of UK policy research, suggesting that devolved governments (in Scotland, Wales, and—to some extent—Northern Ireland) make policy in a more consensual manner and place more trust in organizations such as local authorities (which oversee school governance) ( Keating et al., 2009 ; Cairney, 2008 ; 2013; 2019).

In that context, Chapman and Ainscow (2019 : 899) describe a common ‘equity policy challenge’ to secure ‘sustainable improvement in schools serving learners from disadvantaged communities’ and relate it to UK (governing education in England), Scottish, and Welsh government case studies. In each case, there is scope for each government to fund education and negotiate the central-local relationship in different ways. For example, the Scottish and Welsh governments oversee education systems that favour comprehensive schooling, largely opting out of UK government reforms for England that (a) differentiate strongly between school types (including grammar schools based on academic selection), and (b) encourage school autonomy from local authority control (while giving many schools the ability to cap their recruitment of ‘children with special educational needs and disabilities’— Rayner, 2017 : 30; West, 2006 ). Further, the Scottish Government describes a distinctive focus on (a) reducing an attainment gap in relation to poverty, (b) some redistribution of funding in relation to ‘most disadvantaged backgrounds’ via a £1200 per child ‘Pupil Equity Fund’ sent directly to schools, (c) shifting levels of school resources, such as teacher numbers and class sizes, and (d) performance and leadership (2006: 907; in England the equivalent fund, albeit with limited impact, is the Pupil Premium—BenDavid-Hadar, 2018: 562). Still, Chapman and Ainscow (2019 : 899; 909) highlight broad similarities in each government’s pursuit of ‘bottom-up leadership within a context of top-down political mandate’:

the routine use of centralized accountability measures regarding quality and performance to help improve school management (following an OECD-style agenda);

central government attempts to place high quality teachers in schools in ‘disadvantaged communities’, and;

national-local government tensions in relation to who should drive the policy agenda and how much variation in processes to tolerate (2019: 899; 909).

More generally, the Scottish Government has not found a magic formula to combine social justice and neoliberal approaches. It emphasizes commitment to the aim of a ‘more egalitarian education system in Scotland’ ( Mowat, 2019 : 67), often with reference to myths of Scottish education distinctiveness, connections to Nordic social democracy, and First Ministerial ambitions to ‘close the attainment gap completely’ ( Arnott, 2017 : 5). However, it also produces ‘competing policies and imperatives acting against each other’, with a tendency for Scottish Government policy to be ‘driven largely by OECD rhetoric’ ( Mowat, 2019 : 67), which suggests that ‘attainment gaps’ may relate primarily to minimum thresholds.

Further, Kippin and Cairney (2021) find that all four nations oversaw very similar policy ‘fiascos’ when they sought new exam policies during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. All four pursued a ‘four nations’ approach to education policy, and followed a similar process:

cancelling school exams but seeking a replacement mechanism to allocate final grades (largely to allow students to secure university places);

delegating the moderation of teacher-estimated grades to an exams authority, which used an algorithm to standardize the results with reference to historic schools data;

announcing and defending the results, then;

overseeing a ‘U turn’ by reverting to teacher-estimated grades after public, media, and parliamentary criticism regarding the unfairness of the outcomes (focusing on schools with high proportions of students from low income backgrounds).

To some extent, these experiences highlight the ability of each government to go its own way, and to engage voluntarily in policy coordination. However, the UK government’s decision to change policy quickly (which took place after a similar decision in Scotland) caused the governments in Wales and Northern Ireland to follow suit. Their experience reflects a general ‘tendency for UK government choices to spill over to—and limit the options of—the others’ (2021: 8). In this case, UK decisions for students and university places in England limited the ability of devolved governments to pursue a different policy for students and universities in the rest of the UK.

Conclusion: lessons from education equity for territorial cohesion

The EU, along with its member states and regions, has many vague ambitions to foster greater equity and it is generally difficult to tell if they are complementary or contradictory. In the case of education, policymakers are incorporating social justice and neoliberal approaches to the same sector. While these approaches may be described as complementary in theory, they are contradictory in practice. They describe different functions for education, models of education system governance, and ideas about the appropriate role of the state. One approach emphasizes the need for social inclusion and redistributional measures to foster greater equity of outcomes, while the other emphasizes individual merit and the equal opportunity to attend a high quality school. Organizations such as the OECD and European Commission seek ways to combine these general ideas, to relate equity to social background and school performance. While they describe the relationship between social and economic disadvantage and unequal attainment, their main focus is on fostering reforms to increase the proportion of students reaching a threshold of attainment, aided by international benchmarks to compare attempts to meet that aim.

Similarly, national governments pursue a vague rhetorical commitment to social justice ideas, but a tangible commitment to performance measures designed to foster decentralized delivery and centralized accountability. Country level examples, and case studies of gender, minority ethnic, and immigrant populations suggest that the end result is a tendency for neoliberal reforms to undermine social justice commitments. While Finland represents a model to resist such reforms, it has proven to be exceptional, even among Nordic states. Regional or devolved government autonomy offers the potential to bolster social justice approaches, and improve central-local dynamics. However, the UK experience suggests that the ability of devolved governments to go their own way is tempered strongly by the perceived need to keep up with international practices, particularly in relation to high-stakes measures of performance and the school exams that determine university entry.

These experiences inform approaches to territorial cohesion that relate equity to equal access to public services (Chapter 1 ). They offer a cautionary tale for territorial cohesion policy, since most education equity researchers criticize the negative impact of neoliberal approaches that emphasize equality of access or opportunities, place the onus on individuals to exploit those opportunities, and encourage competition between schools that, by definition, precludes equal access to the same quality of education ( Cairney and Kippin, 2021 ). For some, these outcomes are unintended consequences of the relative attention to neoliberal approaches and NPM-style performance agendas. For others, they are the intentional result of approaches that use social justice and equity rhetoric as a way to hide the limited progress towards reducing inequalities of education outcomes.

As such, there is great potential to learn from such experiences, to inform not only the study of education equity policy, but also the wider collection of policies—including territorial cohesion—designed ostensibly to foster equity. However, it is difficult for policymakers to learn from others if they are not sure what they are trying to do. Indeed, the veneer of equity rhetoric takes attention from not only the contestation to define the problem and offer solutions, but also the tendency for EU and national policymakers to blunt the power of radical initiatives by incorporating them into routine government business.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Solving the crisis: Rising economic inequality

Strengthening the welfare state, access to education, progressive tax policies and overcoming entrenched power structures could mitigate inequality in society

The "Solving the crisis:" series explores the pressing challenges of our time, including climate change, biodiversity collapse, housing affordability and more. Each article highlights how Waterloo, a hub of research, innovation and creative thinking, is uniquely positioned to address these issues. Through this series, we highlight the dedication of researchers to tackling global crises and shaping a better future for all.

Economic inequality is a persistent and complex issue that has been the focus of scholars, policymakers and activists worldwide for decades.

Dr. Francisco Gonzalez is a professor in the Faculty of Arts and researches social conflict, poverty and inequality

Dr. Francisco Gonzalez , a professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Waterloo, brings a nuanced perspective to this problem. His insights, rooted in both historical context and contemporary analysis, highlight the variable nature of this issue and the interplay between economics and politics.

Gonzalez, an expert in economic development and public economics, attributes much of today's economic inequality to attitudes that prioritize individualism over collective advancement. His focus is rooted in broader macroeconomic issues like poverty, unemployment and social welfare.

“Economic inequality within developed countries today mirrors the levels seen before the Great Depression, a period characterized by significant social upheaval and the eventual development of the welfare state as a response to social conflict,” Gonzalez says. “Within these countries inequality was relatively low by the 1980s, but today, inequality is back to the 1920s levels.”

He argues that the welfare state played a crucial role in mitigating inequality in the mid-20th century, but today’s political climate shows a reluctance to embrace government intervention and taxation as solutions.

“I think a lot of people have a narrow view of inequality, focusing on income inequality, or wealth inequality, as outcomes that are unrelated to inequalities of luck and opportunities, and I think that misses the point,” Gonzalez explains. “Many people also seem to believe that inequality is simply the necessary price of economic growth. However, the problem with measuring wealth in terms of averages is that it gives a misleading picture. When inequality grows, average wealth appears to increase because the rich are getting richer.”

Economics refers to much more than average income itself, but rather how income is spent, distributed and valued.

“Markets create some inequality in order to incentivize effort. Of course, perfect equality of outcomes would undermine motivation to undertake costly tasks. However, I think that today’s levels of within-country inequality are excessive and reflect unequal opportunities instead.”

Unequal opportunities arise from various factors, including luck, education and family background. Countries with high levels of inequality tend to have lower social mobility, particularly intergenerational mobility. What people do with their opportunities is important and rapidly evolving with societal changes.

“Understanding the role of luck — both good and bad — and the impact of opportunities is essential. The distinction between inequality of opportunities and inequality of outcomes is crucial,” Gonzalez says. “By gaining a deeper understanding of the diverse experiences people have, we can create a fairer society.”

“If you’re born into a wealthy family, your opportunities and prospects are significantly better. This inherent advantage often leads to greater future wealth. Importantly, we see that countries with higher levels of inequality also tend to have lower social mobility.”

Gonzalez recognizes that addressing economic inequality is complex and challenging due to entrenched power structures resistant to change. “I think the greatest obstacle is that economics and politics are inextricably linked,” Gonzalez says and proposes several strategies to help mitigate the crisis.

Strengthening the welfare state

Gonzalez argues that the welfare state remains a vital mechanism for addressing economic inequality. He believes that the welfare state is not only a measure of economic development but also a critical tool for ensuring social peace.

“Countries with a robust welfare state are more developed, regardless of their gross domestic product levels,” he says. Gonzalez points to the Scandinavian countries as examples of successful welfare states that balance economic growth with social equity.

“Canada also does quite well in this regard, relative to the United States, providing more equal opportunities through its welfare system, despite generally lower incomes.”

Education and social mobility

Education plays a strong role in promoting social mobility and reducing inequality. Gonzalez advocates for a broader understanding of education's public and social value beyond its private returns such as higher incomes and career advancement.

“I believe there is a narrow view of universities as factories of high-skilled workers,” he says. “Education should mitigate social conflict and foster sensible demands from governments. When your population and voters are educated, they should demand sensible things from their governments.”

Education not only equips individuals with technical skills but also cultivates critical thinking, empathy and civic engagement. These qualities are essential for fostering a more equitable and cohesive society. Moreover, education can break the cycle of poverty by providing individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds with the tools and opportunities to improve their circumstances.

Tax Policies and wealth redistribution

Gonzalez highlights the need for progressive tax policies and wealth redistribution to address economic inequality. He references the success of policies like the child tax credit in the United States, which significantly reduced child poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Implementing these kinds of policies is very difficult. Political feasibility is the first constraint,” he says. “Those with political power often resist policies that would reduce their economic advantages.”

Gonzalez underscores the influence of the super-rich on political processes, which often skews policies in their favor.

“The super-rich have political power, and they have an incentive to use it for their own benefit, not for the benefit of society,” he says. “Government taxes and social transfers have done a good job at constraining the growth of inequality, but we need to think about how to do that going forward.”

Gonzalez's insights underscore the importance of addressing both the structural factors that perpetuate inequality and the social conflicts that arise from it. By strengthening the welfare state, promoting equitable access to education and implementing progressive tax policies, society can move towards greater economic justice and social cohesion. However, overcoming the entrenched power structures that resist these changes remains a formidable challenge.

Illustrations generated by Midjourney

Related stories

Solving the crisis: Rising urban temperatures

Three practical pillars for addressing climate change include nature-based solutions, incentives and trust in science

Solving the crisis: Securing our digital privacy

Differential privacy, regulatory frameworks, education and collaboration are key solutions to building privacy-preserving technologies

Solving the crisis: The financialization of housing

A four-pronged approach to tackle housing financialization includes an open data property registry, public housing, rent control and taxing REITs

Find an expert

Contact Media Relations

• Contact Waterloo
• Maps & Directions
• Accessibility

The University of Waterloo acknowledges that much of our work takes place on the traditional territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabeg, and Haudenosaunee peoples. Our main campus is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land granted to the Six Nations that includes six miles on each side of the Grand River. Our active work toward reconciliation takes place across our campuses through research, learning, teaching, and community building, and is co-ordinated within the Office of Indigenous Relations .

Relation Between Justice and Inequality Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Throughout the history of time, people have been complaining about how justice is unequally delivered with the poor being the oppressed. The rich get away with everything and the law does not apply to them. People have come to adapt to the situation of inequality in the application of justice and thus public policy has been constantly under fire (Alesina et al. “ Fighting Poverty ” 6). In this paper we look at how justice is delivered and how simple cases may impact on the overall justice system.

Consider this case; a wealthy man is charged $290000 for a speeding fine. Should the rich be fined according to their wealth or should the overall system be equal to each and everyone. Hacker notes that the justice system has been questioned about being lenient to the rich but in subjecting the rich to more severe punishment does not really help the situation(“ The Great Risk Shift ” 41).

Justice is blind and as such it should not recognize the wealth of a particular person. A murder should be a murderer irrespective of his status in society or his wealth and as such each and every person should serve the same sentence according to the law. The sections that follow shows how counterproductive a ruling as the one mentioned above could prove to be.

Inequality exists in every society but what affects people is the feeling that disparities in social status contribute to people being trampled on and oppressed (Wilkinson, “ The Impact of Inequality ” 18). According to Wilkinson social hierarchy and inequality has contributed to a lot of problems a given society experiences (“ The Impact of Inequality ” 34).

When court rulings tend to punish the rich more financially, the society is then reminded about the existing difference in power. If a rich man can pay $29,000 for a speeding ticket which is arguably more that what most people make in a month feeling of resentment may arise.

At first people may think it a good ruling in that the rich should not be allowed to get away with crime but on the overall it may instill doubt about the justice system to the citizens. Suppose another case which may require jail time arises and the judge provides the option of paying or spending time in jail, this may cause a big commotion since people know that the rich can just pay their way out.

By imposing such a huge fine on the rich offender, the judge has brought the issue of inequality to the law courts. The law should not recognize such aspects of society and in so doing the integrity of the court is undermined (Mishel et al “ Working America” 32). When such a case is brought before a judge, the financial status of the offender does not matter and the ruling should be in accordance with the crime.

One although could argues that in imposing such a fine, the judge seeks to show the public that the rich cannot get away easily just because they have money. The judge tries to instill fear to the rich that committing crime no matter how small may have dire consequences’. This ruling attacks the rich where it hurts the most, their wealth.

It could be wrong not to consider how a ruling like this may impact the average citizen. Since most people who commit crimes like this may have difficulty paying the required money, they are less likely to engage in such activities such as over speeding. In contrast, the rich are able to pay these fines hence are more likely to continue doing this illegal activities since the repercussions can be easily handled (Vogel, “ The Market for Virtue ” 75).

According to Stone, policy making is a constant struggle on criteria classification and the boundaries of this classes and the characterization of ideals that determine the behavior of people (“policy paradox” 13). Considering this train of thought it would seem that the just hash fine is in the right since most rich people commit crime because they can pay off the fines.

Even though these huge fines may help deter the rich from committing this crimes the integrity of the court is undermined. Stone introduces the idea of inducements to create change.

She argues for both the rational method that assumes when dealing with public policy instituting more sanctions to threaten wrongdoers will have a positive behavior change and the polis model. But under the polis model, she states that such sanctions may cause conflicts between the people in society, may make the wrongdoers harden in their resolve or may be sabotaged by the courts to further themselves.

If judges start charging high fines for simple crimes just because one is rich, the courts could become a business where fines are used to further either the courts or the judges themselves. According to Stone such inducements highly rely on the target expectations and point of view and as such could be very hard to design and control them (“ Policy Paradox ”, 38).

In order to have meaningful reforms of the economy and capitalism, meaningless policies such as those designed to make a point on the public should be abandoned (Reisch, “ Future to success ” 52). The structure of institutions needs to be changed in that everyone can relate hence creating a rift in the judgment delivered between the rich and the poor is unproductive.

Whilst the poor may feel a sense of satisfaction in seeing such a sentence delivered, no real impact is made to discourage a repeat of such behavior. If the judge was to seek a real sentence, then the repeat offender’s license could have been suspended or the offender should have spent some time in jail.

The third point raised against such a ruling is the possibility of discrimination. In imposing such a huge fine, the judge portrays that the court views different groups of people. The rich are judged separately from the poor. How can the public trust such a court in other matters e.g. since women often feel oppressed should the court start granting the favors and delivering more severe punishment to men who have committed similar crimes.

Inequality is a real problem in society but it has always been there (Regnier, 13). There are very many people who feel that they are not equally treated such as the physical disabled, minority ethnic groups, religious groups etc. If the court punishes one severely because he or she is rich should it not apply the same reasoning in dealing with case involving all these groups?

Inequality mainly arises due to people’s perception. If the court treats a richer man different as it would a normal man, it then cements the feeling of inequality amongst the people. According to Pear (20), one of the reasons why life expectancy gap has been increasing is that people act different.

The poor engage in risky behavior due to the fact that the society expects them to. Doctors take extra care when dealing with rich patient since they have the notion that it is expected of them (Pear, “Gap in Life Expectancy” 20). A poor man is less likely to properly educate his kid since from experience he has learnt that the world is harsh.

In her book, Ehrenreich notes that the rich can by expensive lawyers, judges and even congressmen while the poor in society are struggling to feed themselves (“ This Land is Their Land ” 136). While most poor people are aware of this fact they really do not care much as it is usually kept secret. A ruling such as the one stated above may unknowingly create this feeling of indifference in the less fortunate members of society (Wilkinson, “The Impact of Inequality ” 19).

The public view is that since one is rich, he may as well pay the fine this is what Reich terms as misdirected moral anger. This feeling of resentment only hinders development as it prevents people from seeing and seizing opportunities. The courts action may bring attention that the rich can get away with a lot thus enhancing outrage among the lower classes of society.

According to Reich (“Supercapitalism” 63), capitalism is slowly stifling democracy. Capitalism prospers according to what most want as individual in the process democracy which is governed by collective desires is being destroyed.

Elections are usually held under democratic principles and so is the constitution that each and every man abides by. The ruling in consideration may please a section of the society but looking at the larger picture is it endorsed by democratic principles. The law is aimed at protecting all, the rich and the poor alike.

Subjecting the rich to more severe fines may create a feeling of fear amongst this section of society. Who controls what punishment the rich should receive? The constitution has not differentiated sentencing into two parts; one for the rich and another for the poor. The issue of fairness in society can be put through a very difficult test if rulings like this were a common occurrence. The sentence for repeat offenders has been stated and through the years it has worked relatively fine.

In conclusion, the sentencing of a $29000 speeding fine could only be justified if everyone else was paying the fine. Imposing such a fine because the offender is a rich person is wrong and may prove disastrous. Inequality exists but the main problem is not that one is richer that the other but the difference in treatment (Onishi, “Revival in Japan” 37). People hate feeling inferior as compared to others and as such this is the main inequality facing people.

The court’s integrity may be undermined in that it could be accused that it is working for profits. The ruling may also be discriminative in nature thus spreading fear amongst the masses rather than settling their doubts. The ruling may also instill in peoples mind the feeling of inequality in that the rich are able to pay through any crime.

The final point against such a ruling is that it may work against democracy that people have fought to maintain for a long time. Such a ruling goes against the democratic principle for fairness to all. Justice is blind and as such one cannot discriminate between the rich and the poor when it comes to court matter once found guilty the sentence should be the same regardless of financial status, sex, orientation, religious beliefs or race.

Works Cited

Alesina, Alberto and Glaeser, Edward, L. Fighting Poverty in US and Europe.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004. Print.

Ehrenreich, Barbara. This Land is Their Land . New York: Henry Holt. 2008. Print

Hacker, Jacob. The Great Risk Shift. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. Mishel, Lawrence, R. et al. The State of Working America 2008/2009. New York:

Cornell University Press, 2009. Print.

Onishi Normitsu. “Revival in Japan Brings Widening of Economic Gap. ” New York Times 16 April 2006: 36-39. Print.

Pear, Robert “Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation”, New York Times 23 March 2008. Print

Regnier Pat. “Are You Better Off.” Money Magazine 14 September 2007: 12-14. Print

Reich, Robert. The Work of Nations. New York: Vintage Press, 1992. Print

Reich, Robert. The Future of success. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001. Print.

Reich, Robert. Supercapitalism. New York: Vintage, 2007. Print.

Stone, Deborah. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making . New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print

Wilkinson, Richard, The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier, London: Routledge, 2005. Print.

Vogel, David . The Market for Virtue . Washington: Brookings Institution, 2006. Print.

• Concept of National and Transnational Entities
• Discipline as an Integral Part of Effective Police Supervision
• Limitation of Speed Limits
• Revitalizing the Speed Limits Debate: Ticket Is Better Than Casket
• Operant Conditioning in Regulating Drivers' Behavior
• Riddle Village Retirement Homes
• History of the Non-Profit Sector
• Community Policing Programs in The U.S.
• Racism and Anti-Semitism in the United States: The Issues Which Are Yet to Be Solved
• Federal Correctional Institution
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, February 7). Relation Between Justice and Inequality. https://ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-inequality/

"Relation Between Justice and Inequality." IvyPanda , 7 Feb. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-inequality/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Relation Between Justice and Inequality'. 7 February.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Relation Between Justice and Inequality." February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-inequality/.

1. IvyPanda . "Relation Between Justice and Inequality." February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-inequality/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Relation Between Justice and Inequality." February 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/justice-and-inequality/.

Gender Inequality Essay

500+ words essay on gender inequality.

For many years, the dominant gender has been men while women were the minority. It was mostly because men earned the money and women looked after the house and children. Similarly, they didn’t have any rights as well. However, as time passed by, things started changing slowly. Nonetheless, they are far from perfect. Gender inequality remains a serious issue in today’s time. Thus, this gender inequality essay will highlight its impact and how we can fight against it.

  About Gender Inequality Essay

Gender inequality refers to the unequal and biased treatment of individuals on the basis of their gender. This inequality happens because of socially constructed gender roles. It happens when an individual of a specific gender is given different or disadvantageous treatment in comparison to a person of the other gender in the same circumstance.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Impact of Gender Inequality

The biggest problem we’re facing is that a lot of people still see gender inequality as a women’s issue. However, by gender, we refer to all genders including male, female, transgender and others.

When we empower all genders especially the marginalized ones, they can lead their lives freely. Moreover, gender inequality results in not letting people speak their minds. Ultimately, it hampers their future and compromises it.

History is proof that fighting gender inequality has resulted in stable and safe societies. Due to gender inequality, we have a gender pay gap. Similarly, it also exposes certain genders to violence and discrimination.

In addition, they also get objectified and receive socioeconomic inequality. All of this ultimately results in severe anxiety, depression and even low self-esteem. Therefore, we must all recognize that gender inequality harms genders of all kinds. We must work collectively to stop these long-lasting consequences and this gender inequality essay will tell you how.

How to Fight Gender Inequality

Gender inequality is an old-age issue that won’t resolve within a few days. Similarly, achieving the goal of equality is also not going to be an easy one. We must start by breaking it down and allow it time to go away.

Firstly, we must focus on eradicating this problem through education. In other words, we must teach our young ones to counter gender stereotypes from their childhood.

Similarly, it is essential to ensure that they hold on to the very same beliefs till they turn old. We must show them how sports are not gender-biased.

Further, we must promote equality in the fields of labour. For instance, some people believe that women cannot do certain jobs like men. However, that is not the case. We can also get celebrities on board to promote and implant the idea of equality in people’s brains.

All in all, humanity needs men and women to continue. Thus, inequality will get us nowhere. To conclude the gender inequality essay, we need to get rid of the old-age traditions and mentality. We must teach everyone, especially the boys all about equality and respect. It requires quite a lot of work but it is possible. We can work together and achieve equal respect and opportunities for all genders alike.

FAQ of Gender Inequality Essay

Question 1: What is gender inequality?

Answer 1: Gender inequality refers to the unequal and biased treatment of individuals on the basis of their gender. This inequality happens because of socially constructed gender roles. It happens when an individual of a specific gender is given different or disadvantageous treatment in comparison to a person of the other gender in the same circumstance.

Question 2: How does gender inequality impact us?

Answer 2:  The gender inequality essay tells us that gender inequality impacts us badly. It takes away opportunities from deserving people. Moreover, it results in discriminatory behaviour towards people of a certain gender. Finally, it also puts people of a certain gender in dangerous situations.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• NCCDPHP's Approach
• Our Work in Action
• Communications
• Social Determinants of Health
• Tools for Partners
• Rural Health
• View All Home
• Health Equity Science: Research and Evaluation

Advancing Health Equity in Chronic Disease

Chronic disease and social determinants of health

More about our work

The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion advances healthy equity through six areas of action.

For Everyone

Health care providers.