IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Perception de l’inégalité des chances et mobilités objective et subjective:une analyse à partir d’entretiens qualitatifs auprès de Liméniens

Listed author(s):
  • Laure Pasquier-Doumer


    (DIAL, IEP-Paris)

(English) The object of this paper is to understand how the perception by Limenians of inequalities of opportunity is formed in Peru, based on qualitative interviews realized by the author. The paper aims to contribute to the normative debate on social justice; as according to several authors, the perception of inequality of opportunity strongly determines the demand for redistribution. A special focus is put to the analysis of the role played by individual mobility in the formation of this perception, by measuring this mobility from both objective and subjective indicators. The first part is dedicated to a survey of literature. The second part analyses the gap between objective and subjective mobility (the interviewees have explained the criteria they use to assess their situation compared to the one of their parents). The majority of interviewees assess their mobility using a monetary criterion. In the third part, the perception of inequality of opportunity is defined from the interviewees’ answers to an open question on the factors they consider the most important to success in their life. The answers underline the difficulty to breakdown effort and circumstances. _________________________________ (français) L’objet de cet article est de comprendre comment se forme la perception des Liméniens de l’inégalité des chances au Pérou, à partir d’entretiens qualitatifs que j’ai réalisés. Il s’agit d’apporter une contribution au débat normatif sur la justice sociale, puisque selon plusieurs auteurs, la perception de l’inégalité des chances détermine fortement la demande de redistribution. J’analyse en particulier le rôle joué par la mobilité individuelle dans la formation de cette perception, en mesurant la mobilité à partir d’indicateurs objectifs mais également subjectif. Après une première partie de ce travail consacrée à une revue de littérature, la deuxième partie analyse les écarts entre les mobilités objective et subjective (les personnes interviewées ont explicité les critères à partir desquels elles évaluent leur situation en comparaison de celle de leurs parents). La majorité des interviewés évaluent leur mobilité à partir d’un critère monétaire. Dans la troisième partie, la perception de l’inégalité des chances est définie à partir des réponses des interviewés à une question ouverte sur les facteurs qui leur semblent être les plus importants pour réussir dans la vie. Les réponses mettent en évidence la difficulté à séparer les notions d’effort et de circonstances.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: First version, 2005
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation) in its series Working Papers with number DT/2005/17.

in new window

Length: 55 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2005
Handle: RePEc:dia:wpaper:dt200517
Contact details of provider: Postal:
4, rue d'Enghien, 75010 Paris

Phone: + 33 1 53 24 14 50
Fax: + 33 1 53 24 14 51
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2000. "Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 159-181, Summer.
  2. Alesina, Alberto & La Ferrara, Eliana, 2005. "Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 897-931, June.
  3. Thomas Piketty, 1995. "Social Mobility and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 551-584.
  4. Corneo, Giacomo & Gruner, Hans Peter, 2002. "Individual preferences for political redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 83-107, January.
  5. Alesina, Alberto & Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2004. "Inequality and happiness: are Europeans and Americans different?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 2009-2042, August.
  6. Claudia Senik, 2005. "Income distribution and well-being: what can we learn from subjective data?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 43-63, 02.
  7. Piketty, Thomas, 1996. "Mobilité économique et attitudes politiques face à la redistribution," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Couverture Orange) 9603, CEPREMAP.
  8. repec:cai:popine:popu_p2001_56n6_0958 is not listed on IDEAS
  9. Nopo, Hugo R. & Saavedra, Jaime & Torero, Maximo, 2004. "Ethnicity and Earnings in Urban Peru," IZA Discussion Papers 980, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  10. Ganzeboom, H.B.G. & de Graaf, P.M. & Treiman, D.J. & de Leeuw, J., 1992. "A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status," WORC Paper 85970031-d601-46e3-befb-1, Tilburg University, Work and Organization Research Centre.
  11. Zimmerman, David J, 1992. "Regression toward Mediocrity in Economic Stature," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 409-429, June.
  12. van Praag, B. M. S. & Frijters, P. & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., 2003. "The anatomy of subjective well-being," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 29-49, May.
  13. Meltzer, Allan H & Richard, Scott F, 1981. "A Rational Theory of the Size of Government," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 914-927, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dia:wpaper:dt200517. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Loic Le Pezennec)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.