Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 119, Issue 1, pp 73–99 | Cite as

Measuring Advances in Equality of Opportunity: The Changing Gender Gap in Educational Attainment in Canada in the Last Half Century

  • Gordon Anderson
  • Teng Wah LeoEmail author
  • Robert Muelhaupt
Article

Abstract

The notion of Equality of Opportunity (EO) has pervaded much of economic and social justice policy over the last half century in conveying a sense of liberation from the circumstances that constrain an individual’s ability to achieve it, and it has been a cornerstone of many gender equality programs. However unequivocal pursuit of the so called “Luck Egalitarianism” imperative has met with many critics who question why individuals who are blessed with good circumstances would wish to be “liberated” from them. This has led to a more qualified pursuit of Equal Opportunity which adds an additional proviso—that no circumstance group should be made worse off by such a policy or decentralized private initiative. Indeed observed practices, by focusing on the opportunities of the poorly endowed in circumstance, do accord with such a qualified Equal Opportunity mandate. Here it is contended that, because of the asymmetric nature of such a policy or initiative, existing empirical techniques will not fully capture the progress made toward an EO goal. Hence a new technique is introduced and employed in examining progress toward such a Qualified Equal Opportunity (QEO) Objective in the context of the educational attainments of Canadian males and females born between the 1920s and the 1970s (In the early part of that century, females did not perform as well as males educationally, and were much more constrained by their parental educational circumstance). A QEO goal is generally found to cohere with the data with females becoming less attached to their parental educational circumstance, and indeed surpassing males in their educational attainments.

Keywords

Equality of opportunity Overlap measure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank John Roemer, Miles Corak, Jacques Silber, Markus Jantti, and seminar participants at the FEMES 2008 meeting, IARIW 2008 conference, University of Toronto, and Mount Allison University for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Anderson, E. S. (1999). What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109, 287–337.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, G. (2004). Toward an empirical analysis of polarization. Journal of Econometrics, 122(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, G., Ge, Y., & Leo, T. W. (2010). Distributional overlap: Simple, multivariate, parametric and non-parametric tests for alienation, convergence and general distributional difference issues. Econometric Reviews, 29(3), 247–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, G., & Hachem, K. (2013). Institutions and economic outcomes: A dominance-based analysis. Econometric Reviews, 32(1), 164–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, G., Linton, O., & Whang, Y.-J. (2012). Nonparametric estimation and inference about the overlap of two distributions. Journal of Econometrics, 171(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arneson, R. (1989). Equality and equality of opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies, 56, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atkinson, A. B. (Ed.). (1983). The measurement of economic mobility. In Social justice and public policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Atkinson, A. (2012). Public economics after the idea of justice. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13(4), 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartholemew, D. (1982). Stochastic models for social processes. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Becker, G., & Tomes, N. (1979). An equilibrium theory of the distribution of income and intergenerational mobility. Journal of Political Economy, 87, 1153–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becker, G., & Tomes, N. (1986). Human capital and the rise and fall of families. Journal of Labor Economics, 4, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Behrman, J., & Taubman, P. (1990). The intergenerational correlation between children’s adult earnings and their parents income: Results from the michigan panel survey of income dynamics. Review of Income and Wealth, 36, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blanden, J., Goodman, A., Gregg, P., & Machin, S. (2004). Changes in intergenerational mobility in britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Blau, F., Brinton, M., & Grusky, D. (2006). The declining significance of gender? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Groves, M. O. (2005). Unequal chances: Family background and economic success. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bratsberg, B., Roed, K., Raaum, O., Naylor, R., Jantti, M., Eriksson, T. V., Osterbacka, E.et al. (2007). Nonlinearities in intergenerational earnings mobility: Consequences for cross country comparisons. Economic Journal, 117, 72–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buchmann, C., & Diprete, T. (2006). The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement. American Sociology Review, 71, 515–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cavanagh, M. (2002). Against equality of opportunity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chakravarty, S. (1995). A note on the measurement of mobility. Economics Letters, 48, 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cohen, G. A. (1989). On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics, 99, 906–944.Google Scholar
  21. Corak, M. (2004). Generational income mobility in North America and Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corak, M., & Heisz, A. (1999). The intergenerational earnings and income mobility of canadian men: Evidence from longitudinal income tax data. Journal of Human Resources, 34, 504–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Couch, K., & Lillard, D. (2004). Linear patterns of intergenerational mobility in Germany and the United States. In M. Corak (Eds.), Generational income mobility in North America and Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Coughlin, P. J. (1992). Probabilistic voting theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Coulter, R. P. (1996). Gender equity and schooling: Linking research and policy. Canadian Journal of Education, 21(4), 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dardanoni, V., Fields, G., Roemer, J., & Puerta, M. L. S. (2006). How demanding should equality of opportunity be, and how much have we achieved? In S. Morgan, D. Grusky & G. Fields & (Eds.), Mobility and inequality: Frontiers of research in sociology and economics. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Dardanoni, V., & Forcina, A. (1998). A unified approach to likelihood inference on stochastic orderings in a nonparametric context. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93(443), 1112–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dearden, L., Machin, S., & Reed, H. (1997). Intergenerational mobility in Britain. Economic Journal, 107, 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Douglas, R., Fienberg, S. E., Lee, M. L. T., Sampson, A. R., & Whitaker, L. R. (1990). Positive dependence concepts for ordinal contingency tables. In H. W. Block, A. R. Sampson & T. H. Savits & (Eds.), Topics in statistical dependence (pp. 189–202). Hayward, CA: Institute of Mathematical Statistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  31. Dworkin, R. (1981a). What is equality? Part 1: Equality of welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(3), 185–246.Google Scholar
  32. Dworkin, R. (1981b). What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(4), 283–345.Google Scholar
  33. Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Dynarski, S. (2007). Cradle to college: The puzzle of gender differences in educational outcomes. Cambridge: Mimeo Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government.Google Scholar
  35. Friedman, M. (2005). The moral consequences of economic growth. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  36. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2002). The power of the pill: Oral contraceptives and women’s career and marriage decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 730–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goldin, C., Katz, L. F., & Kuziemko, I. (2006). The homecoming of american college women: The reversal of the college gender gap. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4), 133–156.Google Scholar
  38. Grawe, N. (2004). Intergenerational mobility for whom? The experience of high- and low-earnings sons in international perspective. In M. Corak (Eds.), Generational income mobility in North America and Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hart, P. (1983). The size mobility of earnings. Oxford Bulletin Of Economics and Statistics, 45, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hurley, S. (1993). Justice without constitutive luck. Ethics, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 35, 179–212.Google Scholar
  41. Jacob, B. (2002). Where the boys aren’t: Non-cognitive skills, returns to school and the gender gap in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 21, 589–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. James, D., Harris, P., Kane, B. & Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (1974). The women’s kit. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
  43. Jencks, C., & Tach, L. (2006). Would equal opportunity mean more mobility? In S. Morgan, D. Grusky,. Fields & (Eds.), Mobility and inequality: Frontiers of research in sociology and economics. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Koenker, R. (2005). Quantile regression. No. 38 in econometric society monographs.Google Scholar
  45. LeFranc, A., Pistolesi, N., & Trannoy, A. (2008). Inequality of opportunity vs. inequality of outcomes: Are western societies all alike? Review of Income and Wealth, 54(4), 513–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. LeFranc, A., Pistolesi, N., & Trannoy, A. (2009). Equality of opportunity and luck: Definitions and testable conditions, with an application to income in France. Journal of Public Economics, 93(11–12), 1189–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levy, H., & Wiener, Z. (1998). Stochastic dominance and prospect dominance with subjective weighting functions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16(2), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linton, O., Maasoumi, E., & Whang, Y.-J. (2005). Consistent testing for stochastic dominance under general sampling schemes. The Review of Economic Studies, 72(3), 735–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maasoumi, E. (1986). The measurement and decomposition of earnings mobility. Econometrica, 54, 991–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maasoumi, E. (1996). On mobility. In D. Giles & A. Ullah (Eds.), Handbook of applied economic statistics. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  51. Mulligan, C. B. (1999). Galton versus the human capital approach. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 184–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Poverty and human functioning: Capabilities as fundamental freedoms. In D. Grusky & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty and Inequality. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Ontario Ministry of Education (1977). Sex-role stereotyping and women’s studies: A resource guide for teachers. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  54. Pezzini, S. (2005). The effect of women’s rights on women’s welfare: The results of a natural experiment. Economic Journal, 115, C208–C227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Piketty, T. (2000). Theories of persistent inequality and intergenerational mobility. In A. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (Eds.), Handbook of income distribution, vol. 1. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  56. Prais, S. J. (1955). Measuring social mobility. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 118(1), 56–66.Google Scholar
  57. Roemer, J. (2006). Democracy, education and equality: Graz schumpeter lectures, vol. 40 of econometric society monographs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada (2006). Report of the royal commission on the status of women in Canada. Ottawa: Information Canada.Google Scholar
  59. Sen, A. (1990). Gender and cooperative conflicts. In I. Tinker (Eds.), Persistent inequalities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sen, A. (1995). Gender inequality and theories of justice. In M. Nussbaumm & J. Glover (Eds.), Women, culture and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  62. Shaked, M., & Shanthikumar, J. G. (2007). Stochastic orders. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shorrocks, A. (1978). The measurement of mobility. Econometrica, 46, 1013–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siow, A. (2002). Do innovations in birth control technology improve the welfare of women. Toronto: Mimeo University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  65. Solon, G. (1992). Intergenerational income mobility in the United States. American Economic Review, 82(3), 393–408.Google Scholar
  66. Swift , A. (2005). Justice, luck and the family. In S. Bowle H. Gintis & M. O. Groves & (Eds.), Unequal chances, family background and economic success, chap. 9. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Van de Gaer, D., Schokkaert, E., & Martinez, M. (2001). Three meanings of intergenerational mobility. Economica, 68(272), 519–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon Anderson
    • 1
  • Teng Wah Leo
    • 2
    Email author
  • Robert Muelhaupt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityAntigonishCanada

Personalised recommendations