Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 209–230 | Cite as

Equality of Opportunity versus Equality of Opportunity Sets

Original Paper


We characterize two different approaches to the idea of equality of opportunity. Roemer’s social ordering is motivated by a concern to compensate for the effects of certain (non-responsibility) factors on outcomes. Van de gaer’s social ordering is concerned with the equalization of the opportunity sets to which people have access. We show how different invariance axioms open the possibility to go beyond the simple additive specification implied by both rules. This offers scope for a broader interpretation of responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bossert W (1995) Redistribution mechanisms based on individual characteristics. Math Soc Sci 29:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bossert W (1997) Opportunity sets and individual well-being. Soc Choice Welfare 14:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossert W, Fleurbaey M (1996) Redistribution and compensation. Soc Choice Welfare 13: 343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossert W, Fleurbaey M, Van de gaer D (1999) Redistribution, talent and compensation: a second best analysis. Rev Econ Design 4:35–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bossert W, Weymark JA (2004) Utility in social choice. In: Barberà S, Hammond PJ, Seidl C (eds) Handbook of utility theory vol. II. Applications and extension. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1099–1177Google Scholar
  6. Fleurbaey M (1994) On fair compensation. Theory Decision 36:277–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleurbaey M (1995a) The requisites of equal opportunity. In: Barnett WA, Moulin H, Salles M, Schofield NJ (eds) Social choice, welfare and ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 37–53Google Scholar
  8. Fleurbaey M (1995b) Three solutions to the compensation problem. J Econ Theory 65:505–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleurbaey M (1998) Equality among responsible individuals. In: Laslier JF, Fleurbaey M, Gravel N, Trannoy A (eds), Freedom in economics: new perspectives in normative economics. Routledge, London, pp 206–234Google Scholar
  10. Fleurbaey M, Maniquet F (2004) Compensation and responsibility, forthcoming. In: Arrow KJ, Sen AK, Suzumura K (eds) Handbook of social choice and welfare, Vol 2. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammond PJ (1976) Equity, Arrow’s conditions and Rawls’ difference principle. Econometrica 44:793–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hild M, Voorhoeve A (2004) Equality of opportunity and opportunity dominance. Econ Philos 20:117–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iturbe-Ormaetxe I (1997) Redistribution and individual factors. Rev Econ Design 3:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kolm S-C (2001) To each according to her work? Just entitlement from action: desert, merit, responsibility, and equal opportunities. mimeoGoogle Scholar
  15. Kranich L (1996) Equitable opportunities: an axiomatic approach. J Econ Theory 71:132–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Llavador HG, Roemer J (2001) An equal opportunity approach to the allocation of international aid. J Dev Econ 64:147–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maniquet F (1998) An equal right solution to the compensation-responsibility dilemma. Math Soc Sci 35:185–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maniquet F (2004) On the equivalence between welfarism and equality of opportunity. Soc Choice Welfare 23:127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ok EA, Kranich L (1998) The measurement of opportunity inequality: a cardinality-based approach. Soc Choice Welfare 15:263–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ooghe E, Lauwers L (2005) Non-dictatorial extensive social choice. Econ Theory 25:721–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roberts KWS (1995) Values opinions or opiniated values: the double aggregation problem. In: Arrow K, Sen A, Suzumura K (eds), Social choice re-examined. In: Proceedings of the IEA conference held at Schloss Hernstein, IEA conference volumes 116–117, Macmillan, HoundmillsGoogle Scholar
  22. Roemer JE (1993) A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philos Public Affairs 22:146–166Google Scholar
  23. Roemer JE (1998) Equality of opportunity. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Roemer JE (2002) Equality of opportunity: a progress report. Soc Choice Welfare 19:455–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roemer JE, Aaberge R, Colombino U, Fritzell J, Jenkins SP, Marx I, Page M, Pommer E, Ruiz-Castillo J, San Segundo MJ, Tranaes T, Wagner GG, Zubiri I (2003) To what extent do fiscal regimes equalize opportunities for income acquisition among citizens?. J Public Econ 87:539–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schokkaert E, Van de gaer D, Vandenbroucke F, Luttens RI (2004) Responsibility sensitive egalitarianism and optimal linear income taxation. Math Soc Sci 48:151–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van de gaer D (1993) Equality of opportunity and investment in human capital. KULeuven, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  28. Van de gaer D, Schokkaert E, Martinez M (2001) Three meanings of intergenerational mobility. Economica 68:519–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erwin Ooghe
    • 1
  • Erik Schokkaert
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dirk Van de gaer
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Economic StudiesKULeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.SHERPPA, Vakgroep Sociale EconomieUGentGentBelgium
  3. 3.COREUniversité Catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations