Equality of opportunity is an important value orientation, and its idea and principle have a far-reaching influence on modern society. The principle of equal opportunities takes individuals at its core and advocates that they make efforts to stimulate their potential. It provides them with a fair environment in which they can compete on equal terms and encourages them to eliminate “abnormal” factors that affect their development (e.g., their ascribed status). The idea of equal opportunities is to provide people with more choices and an effective space for development. Equal opportunities allow individuals to have higher societal expectations and at the same time establish basic rules. They bring vitality to society and facilitate social progress. Equal opportunities are of great practical and theoretical significance value. It is important that they get sufficient attention in local academia.

1 The Specific Meaning of Equality of Opportunity

Opportunity is the space and scope of possibility for the survival and development of members of society. Opportunities are a kind of resource for every member of society.

The so-called equality of opportunity refers to the principle that members of society should follow when solving the problem of how to have opportunities as a resource. That is, the equal should be treated equally, and the unequal should be treated unequally. The principle of equality of opportunity is an essential part of social justice.

Broadly speaking, having equal opportunities means the following:

First, having an equal start and being given the opportunity to survive and develop. Those with the same amount of potential should be given an equal start and the same prospects. “In all sectors of society there should be roughly equal prospects of culture and achievement for everyone similarly motivated and endowed. The expectations of those with the same abilities and aspirations should not be affected by their social class” (Rawls 1999). This is the most basic requirement of the principle of equality of opportunity.

Second, realizing equal opportunities. It is not sufficient enough to simply say that having the same starting point is important. The process of realizing opportunities is also of great significance in order to ultimately realize the principle itself. Any abnormal factors that might interfere with the process should be eliminated. “It was a demand that all man-made obstacles to the rise of some should be removed, that all privileges of individuals should be abolished, and that what the state contributed to the chance of improving one’s conditions should be the same for all” (Hayek 1987). People can only be guaranteed just results if they have an equal starting point and sustained opportunities.

Third, recognizing and respecting people’s potential and allowing some “unequal” opportunities that are based on people’s differences. People are different in their natural endowments; they have different levels of intelligence, different physiques, and different personalities. Their differences have an impact on their development prospects and their ability to seize opportunities. Although their differences are far less influential than their social environment, these differences are “natural” and unavoidable and a reason for inequalities. We should recognize and respect them, as they are normal and reasonable.

It should be noted that the principle of equal opportunities that we discuss here is within the scope of justice in the modern sense. Only a modern society can provide a solid conceptual and realistic base for equal opportunities.

Modern societies provide an appropriate conceptual base for equal opportunities. First, the idea of equality. The idea of equality factors in people’s basic contributions and dignity. Human society cannot exist without individuals making contributions and having a sense of dignity. As Marx said: “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals” (Marx and Engels 1995a). It is the countless individuals that make up a society. “By being human, we are all equal – equal as persons, equal in our humanity. One individual cannot be more or less human than another, more or less of a person. The dignity we attribute to being a person rather than a thing is not subject to differences in degree. The equality of all human beings is the equality of their dignity as persons” (Adler 1984). Clearly, the idea of equality is aimed at guaranteeing people’s basic dignity, and this influences the principles of equal opportunities, meaning that individuals are provided with opportunities that ensure their basic survival and development.

Second, the idea of liberty. The idea of liberty means the autonomy and selectivity of individuals. “It is impossible for one person’s mind to be absolutely under another’s control. For no one can transfer to another person his natural right, or ability, to think freely and make his own judgments about any matter whatsoever, and cannot be compelled to do so… For these things are within each person’s own right, which he cannot give up even were he to wish to do so” (de Spinoza 2007). It also means respecting people’s legitimate differences. Various factors impact individuals’ circumstances, e.g., their endowments, abilities, social circumstances, living environment, and accessibility to opportunities. So people have different opportunities and varied development prospects. This means that they produce different results and have different levels of wealth, prestige, and status. Liberty allows for these differences to some extent. It recognizes the principle of equal opportunities, but requires that individuals are given reasonable room to develop in different ways.

There are solid, realistic grounds for equal opportunities in modern society. Modernization has brought about the principle of equal opportunities. The following factors have given room for people to be unemotional yet self-directed, motivated, specific, and universal: advanced industrialization, the market economy, secularization, democratization, social differentiation, and integration. This is how equal opportunities have manifested.

2 Types of Equality of Opportunity

There are different types of equal opportunities. Summarizing and analyzing these types helps us to reveal their implications and characteristics.

Since opportunities have different meanings for people at different levels, equal opportunities can be divided into two types: shared equal opportunities (or shared opportunities) and differentiated equal opportunities (or differentiated opportunities). The former means that, on the whole, every member of society should have roughly the same opportunity to develop. The latter implies that people cannot have completely equal opportunities in order to survive and develop, and therefore, they should be different to some degree.

The idea behind equality is that everybody should have the basic right to survive and develop, so when opportunities present themselves, they should be equal. In reality, people have similar development prospects in most common (non-complex) industries, and they also have the basic skills to handle the labor. Therefore, theoretically, equality should and can be achieved when it comes to shared opportunities to survive and develop.

Although the idea of shared equal opportunities sounds reasonable, if there is a fundamental approach and rational, differential opportunities are denied, there will be biased distributions. As Rawls argues: “Whether the social system is just or not depends on whether it corrects the misfortunes presented at birth (family and class), and factors in people’s natural endowments and historical conditions (their situation during a certain period or during their lifetime)… only when people take responsibility for their differences, can these differences be factored into distribution” (Beauchamp 1982). This is an egalitarian view, and it almost denies that there can be rational, differential opportunities. It does little to encourage the free development of individuals. In practice, this approach would damage the vitality of society and lead to suppression. It is possible for there to be shared equal opportunities, but it is impossible to bring equalization to all opportunities.

Differentiated equal opportunities factor in people’s freedoms and the principle of reality. “When we consider all members of the human species, we find that, in every respect other than their possession of the same species-specific properties and powers, inequalities in degree prevail. In other words, though all human beings have the same generic and specifically distinctive properties and powers, some will have them to a higher, some to a lower, degree than others” (Adler 1984). So we should first recognize individuals’ dignity and equality, and then recognize their differences. This attitude is in line with the idea of liberty and the principle of reality. The idea of liberty focuses on respecting individuals’ choices, encouraging them to develop their potential and make use of various opportunities in order to realize their own value. The principle of reality allows people a realistic starting point and environment. It enables people to adapt to the market economy, fully grasp various opportunities, make effective decisions and pursue their own independent development. It does not seek to be idealistic and deny the idea that members of society face all kinds of opportunity in reality. The idea of liberty and the principle of reality must allow for some opportunities to be limited to certain members of society. As long as these limits are not too extreme and they don’t affect justice or shared opportunities, they can help people accumulate social wealth, and they can promote social progress and stimulate vitality in society. It should be properly affirmed that this is one of the positive consequences of differentiated opportunities.

Shared and differentiated equal opportunities aside, we can also divide equal opportunities into two other types. We can say that people either realize formal equal opportunities (formal opportunities) or actual equal opportunities (actual opportunities).

Formal equal opportunities refer to the equal opportunities that people “should” have in modern society. They are equal opportunities recognized by law and based on people’s basic human rights. They are “pure” equal opportunities. Formal opportunities have a significant direction or goal. However, it should be noted that “offering a formal opportunity may be a way of recognizing basic rights, but these must be distinguished from effective opportunities whereby people exercise their rights” (Bodenheimer 1974). The latter are actual equal opportunities.

Actual equal opportunities are opportunities that are allowed in practice, in society. In other words, they are formal equal opportunities that are genuinely fulfilled.

Clearly, there are practical limits when it comes to implementing equal opportunities. It is impossible to ensure that they are fulfilled to their full extent. Actual equal opportunities exist for a reason, as Giovanni Sartori said, “That egalitarian treatment does not eliminate differences, i.e., does not engender equal results (in conditions or otherwise), is by now a recognized fact. Equal laws, important as they may be, simply leave us equal before the law; but the underprivileged and the privileged, the gifted and the ungifted, remain as they are” (Sartori 1987). The main reason that actual equal opportunities exist is because there are social and historical constraints. First, modernization has had a huge impact on people realizing equal opportunities. During different stages of modernization, there are different equal opportunities. The two concepts are directly proportionate to one another. In a society with a weak market economy, it is hard to imagine that a significant number of equal opportunities can be given; social integration is distorted, and people’s differences are unclear, plus there is insufficient room for the public to participate in relevant discussions. We can’t imagine an alternative scenario either. Second, in a society that is moving toward modernization, it can take time for people to identify and accept substantive equal opportunities. The process of modernization involves gradually adjusting people’s interests, and therefore there is a process of people gradually realizing equal opportunities. For those who lose their vital interests, equal opportunities mean that there is recognition of their reality. Obviously, introducing equal opportunities means that people go through a process of gradually adapting to them before ultimately recognizing them; that can’t be achieved overnight. Therefore, in order for people to recognize equal opportunities, there needs to be recognition that people’s ideas will naturally not match their reality.

3 The Main Factors Affecting Equal Opportunity Principles

As mentioned earlier, the level of modernization in society impacts how many equal opportunities there are. Overall, there are factors that influence how many equal opportunities there are in society. Direct factors are people’s skills, family, education, occupation, luck, personal choices, and preferences. Although these factors impact equal opportunities, they are not the overall factors. Below, we will look at the first four.

3.1 Individual Skills

People have different genetic qualities. “It has been the fashion in modern times to minimize the importance of congenital differences between men and to ascribe all the important differences to the influence of environment. However important the latter may be, we must not overlook the fact that individuals are very different from the outset” (Hayek 1987). There are obviously factors related to intelligence and other factors (e.g., factors related to emotional intelligence), which mean that people have different abilities. This means that there are differences in terms of how people possess or grasp opportunities. “Persons enter the game in the first place, before choices are made, before luck rolls the economic dice, before effort is exerted” (Buchanan 1986). People’s talents cannot be artificially eliminated.

3.2 Family

The family is the most basic unit in society, and it has a direct impact on people’s possession of opportunities. This is at least the case in terms of how basic qualities are cultivated. The family plays an irreplaceable role in terms of how someone is socialized. “As a rule, parents can do more to prepare their children for a satisfactory life than anyone else… there are some socially valuable qualities which will be rarely acquired in a single generation but which will generally be formed only by the continuous efforts of two or three… belonging to a particular family is part of the individual personality, that society is made up as much of families as of individuals, and that the transmission of the heritage of civilization within the family is as important a tool in man’s striving toward better things as is the heredity of beneficial physical attributes” (Hayek 1987). Second, the family also provides certain social resources. People come from different family backgrounds and so obtain different resources that are necessary for their survival and development. There will obviously be concrete differences among society members, and this is particularly evident in countries with strong family values, like China, Japan, and some eastern countries. Third, some family members also inherit property. In societies where private property is recognized, inherited titles and goods enable people access to exclusive opportunities. “Clearly, there is some tendency for the affluence or poverty of the father to be visited upon the son. As Christopher Jencks and his associates report, the sons of families in the top fifth of the socioeconomic pyramid have average income 75 percent higher than those coming from the bottom fifth… Some of the causes of that differential are undoubtedly genetic or hereditary” (Okun 1975).

3.3 Education

The education that people receive directly impacts the opportunities they have and their ability to seize opportunities. Education plays a more and more important role as society becomes more modernized. On the one hand, education is crucial because it cultivates people’s basic qualities. “Equally if not more important is the role of education in enabling a person to enjoy the culture of his society and to take part in its affairs, and in his way to provide for each individual a secure sense of his own worth” (Rawls 1999). On the other hand, education is an important way for people to acquire specialized skills. The rise of modern industry has meant that the scale of production has expanded rapidly and labor has become more complex day by day. Workers are increasingly required to have specific professional knowledge and specialized skills. Naturally, people acquire these skills via education. Since education is so important, there are different levels of education, and this means different opportunities and the ability to seize different opportunities.

3.4 Occupations

Occupations determine whether a member of society survives and how they develop. “The occupational structure in modern industrial society not only constitutes an important foundation for the main dimensions of social stratification but also serves as the connecting link between different institutions and spheres of social life” (Blau and Duncan 1967). Occupations guarantee whether or not a person can obtain opportunities, and different occupations mean different opportunities. “Unequal opportunity at one point in time generates unequal opportunity over time. Once people are excluded from good jobs, they are deprived of the incentives and opportunities to develop the skills that would otherwise qualify them for good jobs. A black will not invest in education for managerial positions if he has no hope of becoming a manager. If he is blocked from his firm’s ladder-climbing career program, he accumulates fewer skills on the job. Thus inefficiency can grow at compound interest” (Okun 1975). As modern society continuously improves, there is a wider scope for different occupations. As a result, specific jobs have more complex and far-reaching influences than others, in terms of what opportunities people can obtain and how.

4 Social Responsibilities

Equality of opportunity involves another issue: what should society (mainly through the government) do about it?

In order to create a just and vibrant (efficient) society and to take responsibility for all members of society, the social responsibilities regarding the issue of equal opportunities should be as follows: (1) To maintain the idea and principle of equal opportunities. (2) To ensure the implementation of all parts in the social justice system. Equality of opportunity is only one part of the system, and its effectiveness largely depends on whether other parts can be properly implemented, such as the principle of distribution according to contribution and the adjustment rules after distribution. Therefore, it is necessary to coordinate among the different parts of the social justice system. (3) To directly create some “equal” conditions that help implement equal opportunities.

It is evident that society should take on the first two responsibilities. However, what needs to be emphasized here is that it is also very important for society to take on the third responsibility.

Due to the limitations of realistic and historical conditions, it is difficult for many members of society to fully develop their potentialities and compete on a fair basis. Therefore, the state has the responsibility to “equally develop individual potentialities” and to give “everyone adequate initial power (i.e., the material conditions) to acquire the same ability and rank as everyone else” (Sartori 1987). Rawls has specifically addressed this issue. He argues: “In order to treat all persons equally, to provide genuine equality of opportunity, society must give more attention to those with fewer native assets and to those born into the less favorable social positions. The idea is to redress the bias of contingencies in the direction of equality. In pursuit of this principle greater resources might be spent on the education of the less rather than the more intelligent, at least over a certain time of life, say the earlier years of school” (Rawls 1999).

Clearly, the most important and effective way to “equally develop individual potentialities” is for the government to vigorously develop education, especially basic education. “The availability of education serves to reduce rather than to increase the effects of such differences in starting positions… In this sense, education acts similarly to transfer taxation” (Buchanan 1986). Therefore, through large-scale education, members of society can not only receive indispensable “shared opportunities,” but also acquire the necessary abilities and equal start points to obtain “differentiated opportunities.”

It should be noted that, on the issue of equal opportunities, the government should not directly intervene too much or it may cause new problems, mainly new inequalities. Once the government considers the problem too much from the angle of equality, it is likely to further deliberately pursue equal end states. Giovanni Sartori says, “the pursuit of equal end states may jeopardize equal treatment to the point where no assurance remains as to the very pursuit of the alleged goal. Beyond the point of equality of access, policies of equalization are largely policies of redistribution and, ultimately, of dispossession… It is often less well understood that equal end states necessarily call for unequal means, that is, for discriminating (differential) treatments. Once we decide that given groups are disfavored with respect to the relevant characteristics x and y, in order to eliminate the inequality in question the disfavored must be overfavored, and, vice versa, the advantaged must be disadvantaged” (Sartori 1987). This has been verified in Chinese society.

On the contrary, if society goes to the other extreme and intervenes too much in the equality of opportunity, it is very likely to cause another kind of bias—“the meritocratic rank,” which will damage social justice as a whole. If everything is strictly based on the natural gap of human beings and other factors are excluded, then a new social hierarchy will be formed. Rawls has clearly expressed his concern. He says, “This form of social order follows the principle of careers open to talents and uses equality of opportunity as a way of releasing men’s energies in the pursuit of economic prosperity and political dominion. There exists a marked disparity between the upper and lower classes in both means of life and the rights and privileges of organizational authority. The culture of the poorer strata is impoverished while that of the governing and technocratic elite is securely based on the service of the national ends of power and wealth. Equality of opportunity means an equal chance to leave the less fortunate behind in the personal quest for influence and social position” (Rawls 1999). Fortunately, although there is a certain possibility for this “meritocratic system” to exist, due to various factors in society, it is just a possibility and very unlikely to be achieved in reality. As Arthur Okun states, “Only in academic hierarchies might IQ tend to dominate – since the test is structured in part to serve as a predictor of academic learning ability. Stress on IQ is a form of narcissism peculiar to intellectuals, and fortunately has no counterpart in the marketplace” (Okun 1975).

5 Equality of Opportunity at Present in China

With the deepening of modernization and the market economy, the idea and criterion of equal opportunities are becoming a realistic issue in Chinese society. It has been recognized and accepted by more Chinese people, and their behavior has become orientated toward it. This is a landmark achievement of China’s modernization and an important symbol of China’s social progress, which has an enormously positive significance. Due to the social transition in China, the issue of equality of opportunity at present has some distinct characteristics, but it is faced with some obstacles at the same time.

5.1 Equality of Opportunity: Progress in Four Aspects

The principle of equal of opportunities has been established during China’s process of modernization and market economy. The following factors have given room for people to be unemotional yet self-directed, motivated specific and universal: advanced industrialization, the market economy, secularization, democratization, social differentiation, and integration. This is how equal opportunities have manifested.

Although the term “equality of opportunity” has been known to Chinese people for a long time, it has only existed in Chinese society for about 40 years as a common phenomenon in the modern sense. During the 40 years since 1978, with the advancement of modernization and the market economy, the social structure of China has undergone drastic and tremendous changes. Now, the idea and criterion of equal opportunities have been initially formed in Chinese society and have been recognized by its members. It has begun to have a wide and far-reaching impact on Chinese society and has become an integral part of it. This is mainly manifested in the following aspects:

5.1.1 Social Mobility Has Changed from an Irregular and Semi-Stagnant State to a Relatively Normal, Effective, and Smooth State

Social mobility can be regarded as a significant indicator of how well the principle of equal opportunity has been realized. Since opportunities always exist in a certain geographical space and social stratification system, normal and effective social mobility (especially unstructured mobility; that is, free mobility) is a necessary condition for realizing the equality of opportunity. During the 30 years before 1978, the people’s positions were invariable and fixed in Chinese society. They fell into one of the four identities: urban residents, cadres, workers (which were subdivided into workers in state-owned enterprises and workers in collective-owned enterprises), and rural residents. These four identities were fixed and solidified through an extremely strict personnel file management system and household registration system. It was almost impossible for people to enter the higher status hierarchy. In this case, individuals had few choices and were not able to obtain equal opportunities through normal social mobility. In urban areas, an employee’s identity was highly fixed and rigid because it was often integrated with their occupation, the region they lived in, and the unit they worked in. Most employees rarely moved across regions, industries, or even units. On the other hand, there also was irregular social mobility. Some of the large-scale mobility that happened was more the result of government actions or collective behavior rather than the individuals’ “free” choice. For example, a large number of the urban population moving to rural areas in the early 1960s and the movement of educated youth “going to the countryside” in the late 1960s and early 1970s were organized and implemented by the government. Obviously, such “social mobility” has nothing to do with the idea of equality of opportunity. Since 1978, with the advancement of modernization and the market economy, there have been normal, effective, and smooth channels for social mobility. People have gotten rid of the old situation in which they had fixed identities and jobs and unchanged residences. There have been more channels of vertical, horizontal, structural, and free mobility. This serves as a favorable starting point for the realization of equality of opportunity in Chinese society and has helped achieve some equalities to a certain extent and within a certain range. This is particularly evident in some industries, sectors, and regions, such as joint-stock enterprises, private enterprises, and economically developed areas along the southeast coast.

5.1.2 People’s Behavioral Orientations Have Shifted from Relying on Endowments to Self-Motivated Efforts

During the 30 years before 1978, members of society acquiring a certain social position was mainly due to their ascribed status, especially their political status. When people obtained opportunities such as employment, joining the army, and getting promoted and joining the Communist Party of China, they mainly relied on the credibility of their family background and political identities rather than their own abilities and efforts. Those with good political identities could easily acquire a better social position, while those with bad political identities (such as landlords, rich farmers, counterrevolutionaries, bad influencers [“bad elements”], capitalists, etc.) were often labeled as “alien” and it was difficult for them to obtain a better social position. “Political review/political background check” became buzzwords. Obviously, rules based on congenital factors go against the principle of equality. In China’s present time, things have changed dramatically. Now, with the establishment of the market economy, the law of equal competition has an increasing impact on the entire society. The influence of family and political background has almost disappeared, and the motivational orientations have prevailed. Members of society, especially the younger generation, are increasingly convinced that only by their own efforts, personal abilities, and performance can they obtain a more satisfactory social position. When labor markets, talent exchange centers, and employers recruit employees, they mainly examine basic qualities such as their personal abilities. Job promotion and salary increase have been gradually based on ability and performance. In order to improve their abilities, people began to pay attention to the education they can receive, and education (both academic education and adult education) has become more and more popular.

5.1.3 The Urban and Rural Areas, Which Were Originally Isolated from Each Other, Have Been Connected, and There Is Now Large-Scale Social Mobility Between Urban and Rural Residents

During the 30 years before 1978, China’s urban and rural areas were almost separated from each other. Due to scarce opportunities, the planned economy, and the rapid advancement of industrialization at the expense of rural residents, the rural and urban areas were artificially separated. To ensure the separation, China had adopted a very strict household registration (hukou) system since its founding in 1949. This system set the boundaries between urban and rural areas by classifying each person as a rural or an urban resident. It was difficult for rural residents to change their “hukou” status; at that time, there were too few opportunities for them to live and work in cities. Only by being promoted to cadres after joining the army or by going to college and other extremely limited ways could rural residents change their status. This practice violates the basic principle of equal opportunities, limits reasonable social mobility, inhibits the development of the people’s potential, affects social vitality, and hinders China’s urbanization process. Since 1978, with the rapid advancement of modernization, the market economy, and the process of the reform and opening-up, the surplus labor force in rural areas has been increasing greatly, there have been more opportunities in urban areas, and the artificial urban-rural boundary has become blurred. All of this has broken the isolation between urban and rural areas. A large number of rural residents have flocked to the cities to find opportunities and end up living and working there, forming a spectacular “tide of migrant workers.” This is a crucial and practical step for China to realize the idea of equal opportunities in general. The large number of these rural laborers moving to cities has become a relatively strong and realistic social grounds for realizing the principle of equal opportunities. They have had a huge impact on the original two identities, making equality of opportunity not just an idea in Chinese society, but also a realistic matter that involves extensive aspects.

5.1.4 From Focusing on Equality of Results to Focusing on an Equal Starting Point

A basic requirement for the concept of equal opportunity is that members of society should have an equal start and being given the opportunity to survive and develop. Those with the same amount of potential should be given an equal start and the same prospects. The concept also recognizes and respects people’s potential and allowing some “unequal” opportunities that are based on people’s differences. By contrast, before 1978, there was a typical egalitarianism in Chinese society. At that time, under the dual influence of ideology and the planned economic system, society as a whole was raised to a high level, while the individual as an indispensable component of society was seriously despised, and the differences between members of society were ignored. Individuals were seen only as one component of a larger planning system, as uniformly similar roles. In this case, society could only value the equality of the results and the similarity of end states for individuals; that is, the “similar acquisition,” but not the equality of the starting point, which is “equal access.” At the time, the incomes of individuals were very similar. From the 1960s until the mid-1970s, much of the worker’s income was fixed, with little growth. Moreover, the average wages of regular employees in units owned by the whole society in various sectors of the national economy were also relatively close. In fact, this is another kind of deprivation because it can throw people with stronger abilities who make greater contributions into deprivation of opportunities and distribution. After 1978, the aforementioned situation was greatly improved. In the context of market economy, social differentiation, social mobility, etc., the people increasingly value the equality of starting points and recognize that some “unequal” opportunities due to different development potentials are reasonable. Now, the people have abandoned egalitarianism from the bottom of their hearts and have gradually embraced the idea of equality of opportunity. They expect that society can provide everyone with an equal starting point in terms of survival and development, so that they can achieve their own development under the conditions of orderly competition rules. Moreover, many major social policies that have been issued and will be issued by the state are also conducive to the implementation of the principle of equal starting point. In addition, with society’s recognition of the differences between individuals, the gradual formation of a social stratification structure system that is compatible with modern society, and the continuous differentiation of occupational structures, the people’s income has shown a state of diversification.

5.2 Equality of Opportunity: Three Manifestations of “Chinese characteristics”

Chinese society is undergoing a rapid transition; the market economy and the planned economy coexist in this special period. There is usually a dual structure in late-developing countries, such as the modern industrial sector and the old agricultural sector coexisting together. Unlike those countries, however, the current dual structure of Chinese society is highlighted by the coexistence of two different economic systems, the market economy and the planned economy. In the 30 years before 1978, China had implemented a strict planned economic system, which created a social model that matched it. After the 40 years of reform and opening up, the market economy has become an important part of Chinese society. However, it should also be noted that “in the reform process, various ‘fast variables’ and ‘slow variables’ have been disconnected from each other, making it difficult for the market economy to be fully and rapidly put into operation in a short period of time” (Wu 1993). Moreover, the market-oriented solutions that people proposed could not be completely accurate; therefore, the planned economy existed to varying degrees in a certain period of time, in order to prevent a vacuum in the process of economic reform. In this way, the two different systems are bound to coexist for some time during this specific period. This situation will have a significant influence on the idea and criterion of equal opportunities; thus the principle shows the following characteristics.

5.2.1 Compared to Differentiated Opportunities, Shared Opportunities Are More Easily Accepted by the Public

In modern society, shared opportunities and differentiated opportunities exist as an organic whole, together constituting the idea and criterion of equal opportunities. However, at China’s present stage, there is an obvious separation of shared opportunities and differentiated opportunities. There are not many people who are truly aware of the market economy as well as have a corresponding development potential and competitiveness, so there will not be too many people who can accept the principle of differentiated opportunities. On the contrary, more of the population does not agree with differential opportunities, but they can accept the principle of shared opportunities. This is mainly due to following reasons. First, the influence of the planned economic system. China implemented the planned economy system for several decades, which has had a far-reaching impact on society and created the social model, behavior, and values that are suitable for it. Influenced by its inertia, there are still many people who yearn for the distribution mode of equal results in that period and the welfare guarantee policy that ran through the employees’ lives. They are more likely to accept shared opportunities, and it is difficult for them to recognize differentiated opportunities. Second, the influence of egalitarianism in traditional Chinese culture. The concept of “not worrying over poverty but instead over equal distribution of wealth” is deeply rooted in traditional Chinese culture, and continues to this day. It is difficult to recognize differentiated opportunities with this concept, but it can recognize shared opportunities to a certain extent. Third, anxiety in the period of social transformation. The rapid changes in Chinese society have led to large-scale and rapid changes in a social environment that the people used to be familiar with. In this period of change, there are bound to be a lot of new things, new ideas, and new behaviors. It takes time for the people to recognize these things. Furthermore, the people will not have very clear expectations about the outcome of the reform for a while. In this case, the people cannot predict their specific situation in the future, so it is inevitable that there will be a psychological anxiety of taking risks. Social anxiety will make members of society have a strong sense of self-protection, paying special attention to things directly related to their basic livelihood. In this case, it is easy for members of society to agree with the principle of shared opportunities. Fourth, the demonstrative effect of foreign countries. China had been in a closed state for 30 years before 1978; after 1978, China began to vigorously promote opening up to the outside world. Since the opening up at this time was not caused by foreign military pressure, the gap between China and foreign developed countries was first manifested as economic disparity. Undeniably, the social welfare and social security systems in some developed countries have had a great influence on the Chinese people. Therefore, it is natural for many members of society to recognize the principle of shared opportunities.

5.2.2 The Gap Between Formal Opportunities and Actual Opportunities Is too Large

Due to various historical and practical factors, there is often a “reasonable” gap between formal opportunities and actual opportunities. However, the gap in Chinese society at present is too large, exceeding the normal range. This is because, first, the human rights goals of Chinese society (including equality of opportunity) are rapidly converging with those of developed countries. For example, China has acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Convention on Equal Pay for Men and Women Workers for Equal Work, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Secondly, we should note that, at present in China, the processes of modernization and the market economy are still in the primary stage, so it is inconceivable that under such current conditions, the idea and criterion of equal opportunities can be fully fulfilled. Thirdly, the development of Chinese society is currently very uneven. Units (such as private enterprises and joint-stock enterprises), regions (such as Shenzhen, Pudong District of Shanghai, and other places) and social groups (such as managers, “white-collar workers”, lawyers, industrial and commercial self-employed individuals, and other powerful groups), which are highly and directly related to the market economy, are more likely to recognize the principle of equal opportunities than those who are on the contrary (such as government institutions, workers of large and medium-sized state-owned enterprises, employees of government institutions, retired workers, most areas in the central and western regions, etc.). Therefore, it is inevitable that there will be an excessive gap between formal opportunities and actual opportunities. In this respect, the problem of “migrant workers” entering cities is of typical significance. Theoretically speaking, this is in line with the principle of equal opportunities, and it is a great step forward in the issue of equal opportunities in Chinese society. But the reality is that the capacity of cities in China is limited at present, and a large number of unemployed people in cities are looking for employment opportunities as well. Too many “migrant workers” entering the city will increase the burden of the city and occupy the employment opportunities of some urban residents. As a result, cities often formulate some discriminatory policies and regulations and implement them against “migrant workers.” “At present, certain big cities have started to take administrative measures and even regulations again, strictly restricting rural residents from working and doing business and only allowing them to do the ‘dirty, tiring, and bad’ jobs that city dwellers don’t want to do” (Wang 1996). Obviously, this has seriously damaged the principle of equal opportunities.

5.2.3 The Principle of Equal Opportunities Sometimes Conflicts with the Normal Social Order

This is prominently manifested in the dilemma between social order and social mobility. Normal social order is the prerequisite for the smooth progression of the modernization process, and the realization of free and orderly social mobility is not only a necessary condition for realizing the idea and criterion of equal opportunities, but it is also important contents for fully realizing equal opportunities. Only by realizing real social mobility can we effectively disintegrate the hierarchical system of traditional society, effectively eliminate the boundary between urban and rural areas, and then realize the ideas of “equality” and “freedom.” Essentially, the social order and social mobility of modern society are consistent, but in reality, they sometimes contradict each other. We still take the problem of migrant workers entering cities as an example. At present in China, there are not only a large number of unemployed people and a high hidden unemployment rate in cities, but there is also a larger idle labor force in the rural areas. In China’s agricultural production, the work of two people is done by three people, and this phenomenon is increasing year by year. After all, the rural society has limited ability to take in these surplus labors. In order to make a living, a huge amount of rural surplus labor force will flow to cities and towns. Such a huge floating population will have a great impact on the normal social order of Chinese cities. At the same time, within a certain period of time, the capacity of the city, especially employment opportunities, is limited. Therefore, in order to maintain necessary social order, the government must make some necessary restrictions on social mobility; that is, within a certain period of time, it is necessary to restrain social justice within social mobility for equal opportunities. However, the questions of how to grasp the degree of restriction and how to arrange the restricted rural surplus labor force without violating the principle of equal opportunities are really difficult to solve, which is a typical dilemma.

5.3 Four Obstacles to Equality of Opportunity

From the above analysis, it can be seen that at the present stage of Chinese society, along with the advancement of the processes of modernization and the market economy, equality of opportunity has become an irreversible trend. However, the development of modernization and the market economy is only at a primary stage, so the realization of the principle of equal opportunities is also at a relatively primary level.

It should be noted that the full realization of the idea and criterion of equal opportunities in China is a gradual process. During the process, many factors are in conflict with the idea and criterion of equal opportunities, directly hindering the smooth realization of it. These direct obstacles mainly include the following.

5.3.1 The Household Registration Management System

As mentioned earlier, China’s unique household registration (hukou) management system directly damages the idea and criterion of equal opportunities and should be completely changed. Admittedly, this long-standing strict system has been loosened; however, we should also note that, for the sake of maintaining normal social order and preventing spontaneous social mobility, it is almost unrealistic to make fundamental changes to the system in a short period of time due to the objective existence of inter-regional and inter-industry interests. Obviously, only when the market economy and urbanization develop to a relatively high degree can China’s hukou system be completely changed. At present, what we can do within a certain stage is to largely adapt and adjust the household registration system.

5.3.2 The Phenomenon of “unitization”

“Unitization” is a unique phenomenon in Chinese society, mainly existing in government departments, public institutions, and large and medium-sized state-owned enterprises. Units originated from the planned economic system, but since 1978, the differentiation of the social organism and the specialization of various departments have become a trend, which have been accompanied by the enhancement of unit independence. In addition, with the advancement of the process of modernization, people’s demand for social services is becoming more and more urgent. However, it will take a long time to form social service systems. This leads to the question: How can we meet the requirements of social services in the near future? As there is no better way, the unit is duty-bound but has to take on the task of solving these kinds of problems for its employees, because the employees can only rely on their units. This seems to be a paradoxical phenomenon: as a result of the social function differentiation, the unit with increasing independence has to take on what is beneficial to the needs of members of society for a while, but will eventually be harmful to the differentiation of social functions—establishing social service systems on a small scale. Once the unit undertakes this task, it will undertake more related tasks accordingly. On the whole, the unit plays a quasi-familial role. “The guarantee of the unit for employees and their families is not only to undertake unlimited obligations in life, but also to be accompanied by political insurance. That is, for the employees’ political and social behavior, the unit shall bear joint liabilities” (Tan 1991). It can be said that, although “unitization” has solved the problems of a survival, security, and welfare guarantee to some members of society to a certain extent, it does more harm than good in the end. “Unitization” is a community of interests of some members of society with an obvious exclusiveness, which inevitably and directly damages the principle of equal opportunities. The phenomenon of “unitization” limits the equal opportunities of many members of society in choosing jobs, and shuts out those who are capable and willing to enter the units. At the same time, they may accept many members of society who are unqualified but have various connections with the units. In addition, “unitization” has aggravated unequal competition among industries and units to a certain extent. Nowadays, due to the increasing pressure of economic life, people have a strong demand for increasing income. Therefore, although the unit is overburdened, at the same time, it must try every means to seek welfare for its employees. These points, coupled with the unhealthy psychology that people often do not earn income based on labor, often result in excessive “remuneration” from other units or members of society by making use of the “advantages” of their own units—that is, the “advantages” of industries and professions. Moreover, many units influence each other and become increasingly fierce. This is a major source of the current unhealthy practices in the industry. Clearly, this has severely damaged the principle of equal opportunities.

5.3.3 Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism also directly contradicts the principle of equal opportunities. It should be noted that, for several reasons and for a long time, egalitarianism has never been able to quickly disappear in Chinese society, and it will still have a harmful influence on the principle of equal opportunities. First, the habitual influence of the planned economic system is far-reaching. As a dominant economic system, the planned economic system has existed in China for more than 30 years, and its influence on the whole of Chinese society is vast. Even now, the system still has a certain direct influence on Chinese society. The planned economic system is a natural breeding ground for egalitarianism, which can continue to exist with the elements of the planned economic system. Second, the traditional Chinese concept of “equal distribution of wealth” is deeply rooted in society. It is the product of the small-scale production mode, incompatible with the market economy and the idea of equal opportunities. It supports egalitarianism deeply from the psychology of many people, but rejects the idea and criterion of equal opportunities. Third, shared opportunities will provide some form of excuse for egalitarianism. As mentioned earlier, shared opportunities emphasize that every member of society should have roughly the same basic development opportunities. In modern society, shared opportunities and disparity opportunities exist as an organic whole, together constituting the idea and criterion of equal opportunities. Although those who agree with egalitarianism reject disparity opportunities, they will recognize shared opportunities, because egalitarianism and shared opportunities share some similarities in form. Therefore, even though the degree of realization of the principle of equal opportunities will continue to improve with the passage of time, egalitarianism can still continue to exist by virtue of its formal similarity with the part of equal opportunities, and distort the content of shared opportunities. Fourth, the adjustment of the interest structure of social groups. Great changes in Chinese society are bound to bring about the adjustment of the interest structure of social groups. In this process of adjustment, some social groups benefit and some suffer. The latter may miss the previous era—that is, the era of the planned economic system—and thus support egalitarianism.

5.3.4 The Official Rank-Oriented Culture

The official rank-oriented culture has a long history in China. The unique economic and social foundation in traditional Chinese society led to a highly centralized political system, which brought about the official rank-oriented culture (Wu 1995). In the 30 years before 1978, the culture persisted for various reasons, one of which was the influence of the planned economic system. The operation of the planned economic system required an all-inclusive administrative power system, and this power system ignored the importance of economic aspects. The official rank-oriented culture means that the economy is determined by power, not the other way around. After 1978, along with the advancement of the processes of modernization and the market economy, the culture should have disappeared; however, China’s social transformation caused this culture to continue to exist. Because of the difficult social transformation, China has been faced with greater pressure and more uncertain factors, leading to more extensive, complex, and prominent social problems. Moreover, the allocation of resources at all levels of society needs effective coordination, and because the market economy was made from scratch, it needs something that facilitates and maintains it in its initial stage. All this determines that the government must concentrate the necessary power and strengthen its authority. But the complexity of the problem lies in that it is bound to objectively promote the official rank-oriented culture as a result. This is indeed another dilemma. In any case, at China’s present stage, the official rank-oriented culture is very obvious, and it is eroding the idea and criterion of equal opportunities. It may provide certain privileges for areas closely related to the government, resulting in the monopoly of certain industries, and thus causing some unfair competition between industries contrary to the principle of equal opportunities. It may also provide “convenient” conditions for government officials or the individuals who have a good relationship with the government, so that the fair competition rules among members of society will be lost or distorted to varying degrees.

In summary, the realization of the idea and criterion of equal opportunities in China depends on the degree of elimination or alleviation of the above factors. Otherwise, equal opportunities will merely become empty talk for members of Chinese society.