From inequality to equality: Evaluating normative justifications for affirmative action as racial redress

Abstract

We investigate whether, and to what extent, Nozick's entitlement theory and Rawls's theory of justice as fairness can normatively ground affirmative action policies. Our findings are that, whereas the Nozickean project offers no guidance for large-scale redress, the Rawlsian position supports affirmative action as redress, but only in its softer forms. Therefore, if one accepts the assumptions of equal liberty and fairness upon which Rawls's theory is based, one is left with two alternatives: either to reject Rawls's theory because it fails to support quota systems, or to accept Rawls's theory and reject quota systems as a legitimate form of redress. We argue for the latter option.

Gender Diversity and Equality in the Boardroom: Impacts of Gender Quota Implementation in Portugal

“…The number of women on the executive boards of the 200 largest German companies remains only at a very low level even while having risen in the last year studied, especially on supervisory boards rather than on executive boards. Furthermore, authors also report a small but statistically significant positive relationship between a higher proportion of female supervisory board members and an increase in their proportion on executive boards (Hall & Woermann, 2014). In France, the quota triggered an immediate impact in increasing female representation that Rosenblum & Roithmayr (2015) interrelate with the desire of companies to secure beforehand the selection of "the most competent" women directors in the French corporate environment.…”

“…In turn, hard quotas correspond to the legal introduction of a mandatory target for the underrepresented group in boardrooms. In this sense, whenever referring to "quotas", one generally means "hard quotas" corresponding to a legal form of affirmative action (Hall & Woermann, 2014). Therefore, and henceforth, this study simply indicates "quotas" whenever referring to hard quotas, and "soft quotas" whenever distinction is needed.…”

“…There are three main controversial topics of discussion surrounding the debate on the legitimacy of quotas: 1) the justice of quota implementation (Brandth & Bjørkhaug 2015;Hall & Woermann, 2014;Lansing & Chandra, 2012;Terjesen & Sealy, 2016); 2) the compromise of meritocracy by quotas (Dale-Olsen et al, 2013;Kakabadse et al, 2015;Koch, 2015;Lansing & Chandra, 2012;Lending & Vähämaa, 2017;Terjesen & Sealy, 2016); 3) and the implementation of work-life balance policies (Holst & Wrohlich, 2017;Koch, 2015;Lansing & Chandra, 2012;Sandberg, 2013;Wiersema & Mors, 2016).…”

“…However, he does not explain how to implement any such rectification -for instance, through quotas -, without sacrificing the premise that when individuals benefit from something acquired legitimately, i.e. due to their own merit, the state must not intervene to redistribute that benefit among others (Hall & Woermann, 2014).…”

“…Overall, support for quotas stems from utilitarian rather than deontological principles with such grounds deeming state intervention necessary, good and useful to the promotion of equal opportunities, rather than simply considered just (Hall & Woermann, 2014).…”