Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:40:29.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Inter-Group Disparities in the Distribution of Human Development

Two Apparent Conundrums and How We Might Address Them

from Part II - Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
Affiliation:
University of Pavia
Siddiqur Osmani
Affiliation:
Ulster University
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

The assessment of inter-group disparities in the distribution of human development is an important component of the Capability Approach to understanding aspects of social justice. In situations where an adverse social outcome affects disadvantaged and advantaged groups in society differently, the rates at which those groups experience favourable or adverse outcomes tend to be systematically related to the overall prevalence of the outcome. Specifically, as the overall prevalence of that outcome reduces (e.g. as a result of a policy measure or social improvement), the adverse outcome may be found to reduce proportionately less among the group with the higher baseline rate (call it the ‘disadvantaged’ group), while concomitantly, the rate of avoiding the unfavourable outcome rises proportionately less in the other (‘advantaged’) group. The propensity for this to happen was first noticed by James P. Scanlan, and is sometimes referred to as Scanlan's Rule. The Rule might be seen as calling into question standard measurement devices for characterizing groups as being relatively disadvantaged or advantaged, and as suggesting that a concern for group inequality could stymie the possibility of social progress. This chapter undertakes a critical examination of how convincing these interpretations of Scanlan’s Rule are.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, M. D. 2008. ‘Risk Equity: A New Proposal’. Harvard Environmental Law Review 32: 147.Google Scholar
Adler, M. D. 2012. Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost–Benefit Analysis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alcena, V. 2013. African Americans and Medical Diseases: An American Health Care Crisis that Is Crying for Help and Actions. Pittsburgh, PA: RoseDog Books.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. 1973. ‘The Theory of Discrimination’, in Ashenfelter, O and Rees, A (eds.). Discrimination in Labor Markets. Princeton University Press: 333.Google Scholar
Braveman, P. 2006. ‘Health Disparities and Health Equity: Concepts and Measurement’. Annual Review of Public Health 27: 167194.Google Scholar
Brownlie, I. 1971. Basic Documents on Human Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Brulle, R. J. and Pellow, D. N. 2006. ‘Environmental Justice: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities’. Annual Review of Public Health, 27:103–24Google Scholar
Christiano, T. and Braynen, W. 2008. ‘Inequality, Injustice and Levelling Down’. Ratio 21/4: 392420.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Ebert, U. 1997. ‘Social Welfare When Needs Differ: An Axiomatic Approach’. Economica 64/254: 233244.Google Scholar
Evans, G. W. and Kantrowitz, E. 2002. ‘Socioeconomic Status and Health: The Potential Role of Environmental Risk Exposure’. Annual Review of Public Health 23: 303331.Google Scholar
Galanter, M. 2002. ‘Righting Old Wrongs’, in Minow, M (ed.), introd. and with commentaries ed. Rosenblaum, N. L.. Breaking the Cycles of Hatred: Memory, Law, and Repair. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press: 107131.Google Scholar
Geddes, I., Allen, J., Allen, M. and Morrisey, L. 2011. The Marmot Review: Implications for Spatial Planning. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Available at: www.nice.org.uk/media/default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-guidelines/Public-health-guidelines/Additional-publications/Spatial-planning/the-marmot-review-implications-for-spatial-planning.pdf (accessed 24 February 2020).Google Scholar
Glewwe, P. 1990. ‘Household Equivalence Scales and the Measurement of Inequality: Transfers from the Poor to the Rich Could Decrease Inequality’. Journal of Public Economics 44/2: 211216.Google Scholar
Healthy People. 2020. ‘Disparities’ (Foundation Health Measures). Available at: www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/disparitiesAbout.aspx (accessed 24 February 2020).Google Scholar
Jourdain-Earl, M. 2011. ‘The Foreclosure Crisis and Racial Disparities in Access to Mortgage Credit, 2004–2009’. Arlington, VA: ComplianceTech.Google Scholar
Krtscha, M. 1994. ‘A New Compromise Measure of Inequality’, in Eichhorn, W (ed.). Models and Measurement of Welfare and Inequality. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lambert, P. J. and Subramanian, S. 2014. ‘Disparities in Socio-Economic Outcomes: Some Positive Propositions and their Normative Implications’. Social Choice and Welfare 43/3: 565576.Google Scholar
Lambert, P. J. and Yitzhaki, S. 1995. ‘Equity, Equality and Welfare’. European Economic Review 39: 674682.Google Scholar
Lambert, P. J. and Zheng, B. 2011. ‘On the Consistent Measurement of Achievement and Shortfall Inequality’. Journal of Health Economics 30/1: 214219.Google Scholar
Longhofer, S. D. 1995. ‘Rooting Out Discrimination in Home Mortgage Lending’, in Economic Commentary (November). Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.Google Scholar
Loury, G. C. 2002. The Anatomy of Racial Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, S. and Walsh, N. 2010. Money Well Spent: How Positive Social Investments Will Reduce Incarceration Rates, Improve Public Safety, and Promote the Well-Being of Communities. Justice Policy Institute Report, September. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.Google Scholar
Majumdar, M. and Subramanian, S. 2001. ‘Capability Failure and Group Disparities: Some Evidence from India for the 1980s’. Journal of Development Studies 37/5: 104140.Google Scholar
Marmot, M. G. and Shipley, M. 1996. ‘Do Socio-Economic Differences in Mortality Persist After Retirement? 25-Year Follow-Up of Civil Servants from the First Whitehall Study’. British Medical Journal 313: 11771180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmot, M. G., Stansfeld, S., Patel, C., North, F., Head, J., White, I., Brunner, E., Feeney, A. and Davey Smith, G. 1991. ‘Health Inequalities Among British Civil Servants: The Whitehall II Study’. Lancet 337: 13871393.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. 1997. ‘Equality and Priority’. Ratio (new ser.) 10/3: 202221.Google Scholar
Parry, I. W. H., Sigman, H., Walls, M. and Williams, R. C. III. 2006. ‘The Incidence of Pollution Control Policies’, in Tietenberg, T and Folmer, H (eds.). The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics: A Survey of Current Issues, 2006–2007. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar: 142.Google Scholar
Phelps, E. S. 1972. ‘The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism’. American Economic Review 62: 659661.Google Scholar
Scanlan, J. P. 1992. ‘The Curious Case of Affirmative Action for Women’. Society (January–February): 3641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlan, J. P. 2006. ‘Can We Actually Measure Health Disparities?Chance 19/2: 4751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlan, J. P. 2013. ‘Misunderstanding of Statistics in the Enforcement of Fair Lending Laws’. Letter to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (4 March). Available at: http://jpscanlan.com/images/Federal_Reserve_Board_Letter_with_Appendix.pdf (accessed 24 February 2020).Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1973. On Economic Inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1980. ‘Equality of What?’ in McMurrin, S. M. (ed.). The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Cambridge University Press: 195220.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shorrocks, A. F. 2004. ‘Inequality and Welfare Evaluation of Heterogeneous Income Distributions’. Journal of Economic Inequality 2/3: 193218.Google Scholar
Smedley, B. D., Stith, A. Y. and Nelson, A. R. (eds.). 2003. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Strolovitch, D. Z. 1998. ‘Public Attitudes Toward Race- and Gender-Targeted Anti-Discrimination Policy’. National Women’s Studies Association Journal 10/3: 2753.Google Scholar
Subramanian, S. 2011. ‘Are Egalitarians Really Vulnerable to the Levelling Down Objection and the Divided World Example?Journal of Philosophical Economics IV/2: 514.Google Scholar
Thurow, L. C. 1980. The Zero-Sum Society: Distribution and the Possibilities for Economic Change. New York: Basic Books (new ed. 2001).Google Scholar
Vincent, C. G. and Tobin, T. J. 2011. ‘The Relationship Between Implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) and Disciplinary Exclusion of Students from Various Ethnic Backgrounds With and Without Disabilities’. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 19/4: 217232.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×