Equal Opportunity in the Educational System and the Ethics of Responsibility.

De Villé, P. (2003). Equal Opportunity in the Educational System and the Ethics of Responsibility. Les Cahiers de Recherche du Girsef, 17.To be "just", a society should treat every child fairly, i.e. with equal concern with regard to his potential education achievements. A person's educational achievements is indeed essential for enhancing her capacity for self-development: ideally, they all should have the same opportunities for achieving a level of formal education that would allow them to further study and compete for the jobs that they are fit for. This requires that the allocation of public educational resources among children should satisfy some principles of justice. Alongside objectives in terms of equality of "extended resources", recent theories of justice have emphasised the importance of taking into account personal responsibility in the design of equal opportunity policies. Allocation rules of educational expenditures should compensate for difference in non-controllable (by the child) determinants of school achievements, but also let freely determined effort levels to be adequately rewarded. Some allocation rules inspired by those requirements are discussed and the underlying reasoning for considering them are questioned along four different dimensions : 1. the child's effort and its determinants 2. the child's "school achievement production function": i.e. substitutability or complementarity between the determinants of school achievements, 3. the importance of externalities within the class room (peer effects), 4. the structure of the secondary school curricula. It is argued that all those dimensions are justifying the importance given to equal opportunity considerations but are also essential in identifying what should be the basic features of an equal opportunity strategy. In particular, they suggest that the focus on responsibility as one essential dimension in the design of such a strategy might be misplaced. But it also points out that an equal opportunity strategy consisting of compensating for inequality in endowments among children should also carefully incorporate various incentives mechanisms that will both enhance the effectiveness of the equality of opportunity strategy while contributing at the same time to the maximisation of the total human capital acquired by the children. Section 1 discusses what is the "equal opportunity" approach to schooling, its raison d'être. Section 2 reviews and critically discuss the basic "equal opportunity" model and its implications. Sections 3 and 4 present modifications and extensions of this framework and section 5 concludes with some policy recommendations

The Three Faces of the Coin: A Socio-economic Approach to the Institution of Money

This paper develops a broad, multi-faceted approach to the socio-economics of money. The aim is to elaborate models with which to describe and analyze money and money systems in modern societies. No single theory is conceivable but a complex of interlinked theories can help us understand and explain many aspects of money: (1) money as a means to represent and communicate value; (2) money as technology (money, like other technologies such as keys, carpenter tools, automobiles, factories, and nuclear power stations, embodies in its design particular rules and collective representation(s) and is associated with a variety of techniques for using it); (3) monetary orders as socio-technical systems that are in part designed, administered and regulated (there are institutional arrangements or rule regimes -- in particular the monetary order and policy, property rights, and markets -- relating to access, control, use, and management of money and money processes); (4) multiple perspectives, meanings, and uses of money within diverse institutional domains and social settings, for instance, the universalizing qualities of money as well as its particularization in concrete social and moral settings; (5) contradictory uses and purposes of money in modern societies: among others, as a medium of exchange, as a standard or measure of value; as a basis for expanding productive capacity ("capital") or initiating projects and programs; as a source of social power

Equal Opportunity in the Educational System and the Ethics of Responsibility.

De Villé, P. (2003). Equal Opportunity in the Educational System and the Ethics of Responsibility. Les Cahiers de Recherche du Girsef, 17.To be "just", a society should treat every child fairly, i.e. with equal concern with regard to his potential education achievements. A person's educational achievements is indeed essential for enhancing her capacity for self-development: ideally, they all should have the same opportunities for achieving a level of formal education that would allow them to further study and compete for the jobs that they are fit for. This requires that the allocation of public educational resources among children should satisfy some principles of justice. Alongside objectives in terms of equality of "extended resources", recent theories of justice have emphasised the importance of taking into account personal responsibility in the design of equal opportunity policies. Allocation rules of educational expenditures should compensate for difference in non-controllable (by the child) determinants of school achievements, but also let freely determined effort levels to be adequately rewarded. Some allocation rules inspired by those requirements are discussed and the underlying reasoning for considering them are questioned along four different dimensions : 1. the child's effort and its determinants 2. the child's "school achievement production function": i.e. substitutability or complementarity between the determinants of school achievements, 3. the importance of externalities within the class room (peer effects), 4. the structure of the secondary school curricula. It is argued that all those dimensions are justifying the importance given to equal opportunity considerations but are also essential in identifying what should be the basic features of an equal opportunity strategy. In particular, they suggest that the focus on responsibility as one essential dimension in the design of such a strategy might be misplaced. But it also points out that an equal opportunity strategy consisting of compensating for inequality in endowments among children should also carefully incorporate various incentives mechanisms that will both enhance the effectiveness of the equality of opportunity strategy while contributing at the same time to the maximisation of the total human capital acquired by the children. Section 1 discusses what is the "equal opportunity" approach to schooling, its raison d'être. Section 2 reviews and critically discuss the basic "equal opportunity" model and its implications. Sections 3 and 4 present modifications and extensions of this framework and section 5 concludes with some policy recommendations

« Une lecture hicksienne de la Théorie Générale de Keynes » : de la difficulté de conjuguer des grammaires différentes

It is argued that it is not logically consistent to interpret Keynes' General Theory in the light of Hicks' conceptual approach of dynamics. Hicks' sequential analysis is ultimately based on the static equilibrium method. The basic time unit must be a period characterized by a stationary equilibrium. However such basic time unit is difficult to define in a stock-flow model where the stock equilibrium conditions might be inconsistent when they involve expectations with different time horizons. On the contrary, Keynes' implicit approach to dynamics in the General Theory is to get away from Hicks' stationary equilibrium of the basic time unit. The "day-to-day" key nesian dynamics is based on a basic time unit called the "accounting period" ; it is the time interval within which no change in decisions can be made. At the beginning of each "day", short-run and long- run expectations are formed, decisions are made and results of the previous period are known. At the end of the accounting period, balance-sheets constraints are fulfilled by issuing new assets and liabilities. Financial as well as physical constraints are reevalued. Although still not fully developed and formalized, this approach to dynamics based on a continuous "day-do-day" adjustment of expectations seems to be an alternative to the hicksian pseudo-dynamic equilibrium method.On y présente la critique d'une interprétation de la Théorie Générale qui reposerait sur l'approche hicksienne de la dynamique. Cette approche séquentielle de Hicks est basée sur la méthode de l'équilibre statique. L'unité de temps élémentaire doit être un intervalle de temps caractérisé par un équilibre sta- tionnaire. La définition d'une telle unité est difficile dans un modèle stock-flux où les conditions d'équilibre des stocks peuvent s'avérer contradictoires lorsqu'elles impliquent des attentes ayant des horizons temporels différents. A l'opposé, l'approche implicite de la dynamique chez Keynes s'efforce de rompre avec l'approche en terme d'équilibre stationnaire de Hicks. La dynamique keynésienne « au jour le jour » repose sur une unité de temps élémentaire qu'on appelle la « période comptable ». Celle-ci se caractérise par l'intervalle de temps à l'intérieur duquel les décisions à horizon temporel donné sont irréversibles. Au début d'une telle période, les attentes de court comme de long terme sont formulées, les décisions sont prises et les résultats de la période antérieure sont connus. A la fin de la période comptable, l'équilibre des comptes est réalisé par l'émission de nouveaux engagements ou l'acceptation de nouveaux avoirs. Les contraintes physiques comme financières sont réévaluées. Quoique non encore pleinement développée et formalisée, une telle approche de la dynamique paraît une possible alternative à la méthode des équilibres pseudo-dynamiques de Hicks.de Ville Philippe. « Une lecture hicksienne de la Théorie Générale de Keynes » : de la difficulté de conjuguer des grammaires différentes. In: Cahiers d'économie politique, n°14-15, 1988. La Théorie Générale de John Maynard Keynes : un cinquantenaire, sous la direction de Patrick Maurisson. pp. 51-57

Equal Opportunity in the Educational System and the Ethics of Responsibility

To be "just", a society should treat every child fairly, i.e. with equal concern with regard to his potential education achievements. A person's educational achievements is indeed essential for enhancing her capacity for self-development: ideally, they all should have the same opportunities for achieving a level of formal education that would allow them to further study and compete for the jobs that they are fit for. This requires that the allocation of public educational resources among children should satisfy some principles of justice. Alongside objectives in terms of equality of "extended resources", recent theories of justice have emphasised the importance of taking into account personal responsibility in the design of equal opportunity policies. Allocation rules of educational expenditures should compensate for difference in non-controllable (by the child) determinants of school achievements, but also let freely determined effort levels to be adequately rewarded. Some allocation rules inspired by those requirements are discussed and the underlying reasoning for considering them are questioned along four different dimensions : 1. the child's effort and its  determinants 2. the child's "school achievement production function": i.e. substitutability or complementarity between the determinants of school achievements, 3. the importance of externalities within the class room (peer effects) 4. the structure of the secondary school curricula. It is argued that all those dimensions are justifying the  importance given to equal opportunity considerations but are also essential in identifying what should be the basic features of an equal opportunity strategy. In particular, they suggest that the focus on responsibility as one essential dimension in the design of such a strategy might be misplaced. But it also points out that an equal opportunity strategy consisting of compensating for inequality in endowments among children should also carefully incorporate various incentives mechanisms that will both enhance the effectiveness of the equality of opportunity strategy while contributing at the same time to the maximisation of the total human capital acquired by the children. Section 1 discusses what is the "equal opportunity" approach to schooling, its raison d'être. Section 2 reviews and critically discuss the basic "equal opportunity" model and its implications. Sections 3 and 4 present modifications and extensions of this framework and section 5 concludes with some policy recommendations

La concurrence comme défi à l’éthique des affaires : quand les relations sociales sont en jeu

La concurrence n’est pas seulement un mécanisme anonyme de régulation des échanges ; elle est, peut-être avant tout, un mode de relation sociale, que l’emprise croissante de la « logique des affaires » a mis au centre de nos existences. Cet article tente de repérer les enjeux éthiques de la concurrence en montrant quels défis profonds une éthique des affaires digne de ce nom, c’est-à-dire soucieuse des relations sociales en général, devra tôt ou tard relever. Pour mener à bien ce projet, nous nous demandons dans quelles conditions la concurrence peut être un principe d’organisation sociale juste. Dans la cadre relativement abstrait d’une course entre individus, nous montrons que la concurrence ne peut être juste que sous des conditions très restrictives. Ensuite, nous essayons de généraliser cette analyse en discutant deux scénarios plus réalistes : d’abord la concurrence entre individus artisans, ensuite la concurrence entre entreprises capitalistes. Les conditions d’une concurrence juste s’avèrent alors de plus en plus difficiles à satisfaire. N’est-ce pas là une raisons suffisante pour se demander s’il n’existe aucun mode alternatif d’organiser notre vie en commun ?Competition is not only an anonymous mechanism for regulating exchanges. It is – perhaps first and foremost – a mode of social relation, and one which the extension of the “business logic” has increasingly placed at the core of our lives. This article attempts to delineate the ethical issues underlying competition by showing which challenges a proper business ethics – that is, one which cares about overall social relations – will sooner or later have to face up to. In order to do this, we ask ourselves under which conditions competition can be a fair principle of social organization. We investigate this issue first within a relatively abstract setting where individuals enter a race, and we show that such a simple competition can only be fair under very restrictive conditions. We then attempt to generalize our analysis through the discussion of two more realistic scenarios: first, competition between individual craftsmen ; second, actual capitalist competition between firms. The conditions for a fair competition turn out to be increasingly difficult to fulfill. This prompts us to ask whether there might not be an alternative way of organizing our collective lives