Suchergebnisse

This chapter provides a general review of the research conducted over the past two decades on individuals' conceptions of equity and distributive justice and their reactions to inequity. Various theoretical formulations are identified and important topics for further theoretical development and empirical investigation are discussed. In conclusion, the authors suggest that micro-level concepts of distributive justice have certain limitations. Consideration of more macrolevel concepts suggests possibilities for integrating equity and distributive justice theories with sociological theories of power, conflict, and collective action. This integration, if achieved, would bring notions of justice to the forefront in the analysis of social change.

Higher education in India is always a socio-political way and a powerful engine of social mobility. It adds to the benefits to society as more people earning Higher Education credentials. It is proven that college graduates earn more. They are less likely to be unemployed. They are more likely to vote, more likely to volunteer, and more likely to maintain good health. India as a Globalised and developing nation has been little systematically progressing on the educational front since its independence. The government is making progress in reaching out to all the classes of its society. The improvement in the country's economic front has resulted in the upscaling of communication technology. The advent of the internet, have vastly leveraged the promotion of education across all verticals. But at the same time, the idea of Equity and Equality needs to be redefined in the present context of the newly established notion of 'Inclusivity'. This paper deliberates on the various ideas and approaches of Higher Education in India on 'Inclusivity' in general and Equity and Equality in particular.

Debate about gender justice in the context of policy making has increased in the past 30 years, and both 'gender equality' and 'gender equity' are terms in widespread use. However, there is often confusion about what these mean, the distinction between them, and what this distinction might mean for strategies to address gender justice. This is particularly important in the context of health where the gap between women and men is not simply the result of gender differences but also reflects biological influences. Gender justice implies that women and men should be regarded as being of equal moral value, and that they should be treated equally in relation to access to the goods and services that both require in order to flourish. However, biological differences between them also affect their capacity to optimize their potential for health. As a result, measures that address gender equality without also explicitly considering equity can result in unjust treatment for either men or women. Adapted from the source document.

Background: There is strong research evidence on the importance of health equity and equality for wellbeing in societies. As chronic non-communicable diseases are widespread, the positive impact of physical activity (PA) on health has gained importance. However, PA at the population level is far from optimal. PA depends not only on individual factors, but also on policies for PA in sport, health, transport, education and other sectors, on social and cultural factors, and on the environment. Addressing health inequalities and inequities in PA promotion policies could benefit from policy development processes based on partnership and collaboration between various sectors, researchers, practitioners and policy makers (= cross-sectoral, evidence-informed policy making). The objective of this article is to describe how equity and equality was addressed in PA policies in four EU member states (Denmark, Finland, Romania and England), who were partners in the REPOPA project ( www.repopa.eu , EC/FP7/Health Research/GA 281532). Methods: Content analysis of 14 PA policies and 61 interviews were undertaken between 2012 and 2013 with stakeholders involved in developing PA policies in partner countries. Results: Even though specific population subgroups were mentioned in the policy documents analysed, they were not necessarily defined as vulnerable populations nor was there a mention of additional emphasis to support such groups from being marginalised by the policy due to inequity or inequality. There were no clear objectives and activities in the analysed policies suggesting commitment of additional resources in favour of such groups. Addressing equity and equality were often not included in the core aims of the policies analysed; these aspects were mentioned in the background of the policy documents analysed, without being explicitly stated in the aims or activities of the policies. In order to tackle health inequities and inequalities and their consequences on the health status of different population subgroups, a more instrumental approach to health equality and equity in PA promotion policies is needed. Policies should include aims to address health inequalities and inequities as fundamental objectives and also consider opportunities to allocate resources to reduce them for identified groups in this regard: the socially excluded, the remote, and the poor. Conclusions: The inclusion of aspects related to health inequalities and inequities in PA policies needs monitoring, evaluation and transparent accountability if we are to see the best gains in health of socially disadvantaged group. To tackle health inequities and inequalities governance structures need to take into consideration proportionate universalism. Thus, to achieve change in the social determinants of health, policy makers should pay attention to PA and proportionally invest for universal access to PA services. PA promotion advocates should develop a deeper awareness of political and policy structures and require more equity and equality in PA policies from those who they seek to influence, within specific settings for policy making and developing the policy agenda.

In the more than 60 years since the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, the United States has been struggling to assure educational equality for all learners. This article will review how attempts at equality such as accountability and standardization movements have failed to close opportunity gaps for vulnerable and marginalized groups, particularly for students with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Critical issues are raised about current reforms, in order to broaden educational conversations for a deeper analysis, recognizing the implications for sustained, comprehensive solutions.

The law of cohabitation and the succession rights of cohabitants in England and Wales have been subject to separate reviews recently by the Law Commission for England and Wales. Even though the Law Commission's recommendations have not been implemented by the British government, the reviews raise some interesting, if not challenging, issues regarding the need to formally recognize cohabitation. A key argument for extending rights to cohabitants is the increased social acceptance of cohabitation as an alternative form of partnering and child bearing to marriage—that cohabitation, albeit not formalized, may be equally committed and stable and should not therefore be discriminated against. The article is concerned with two issues: the criteria adopted for determining cohabitants' qualification and the benefits that accrue from such qualification. It will examine whether a normative commitment to the promotion of stable, committed, and interdependent cohabitation has helped to secure equality for cohabitants, through more equitable treatment in terms of remedies upon termination of the relationship. The article argues that this objective has not been achieved and that giving cohabitation equivalent value to formalized relationships is heavily dependent on the meanings we attach to norms such as commitment and (inter)dependence.