Database Reference
In-Depth Information
review of racial prejudice, and finally, to (Harford, 2008) for a discussion of rational
racism. (Yamagishi et al., 1999) review social theories of in-group favoritism.
In the legal context, provisions on equality or non-discrimination 3 are firmly em-
bedded within the key human rights treaties of the United Nations Legislation (Uni-
ted Nations Legislation, 2011). Anti-discrimination laws, however, have evolved
differently in common law countries compared to civil law ones. The United States
(US) Federal Legislation (U.S. Federal Legislation, 2011), the U.K. Legislation
(U.K. Legislation, 2011) and the Australian Legislation (Australian Legislation,
2011) follow the common law characteristic of “the absence of systematisation,
or a desire thereof” (Schiek et al., 2007, Introductory Chapter), with the result that
laws have been developed ground-by-ground and with reference to specific con-
texts, possibly with different ruling from one case to another. The European Union
(EU) Legislation (European Union Legislation, 2011) and the EU Member States
follow a principled approach, resulting in laws covering a (long) list of grounds of
discrimination. For a deeper legal discussion and comparison of national and inter-
national laws, we refer the reader to topics on international group rights (N. Lerner,
2003; Schiek et al., 2007), on EU laws (Ellis, 2005; E.U. Agency for Fundamental
Rights, 2011), and on US laws (Bamforth et al., 2008). Several independent author-
ities (equality enforcement bodies, regulation boards, consumer advisory councils,
commissions) provide advice, monitor, and report on discrimination compliances.
For instance, the EU Commission 4 publishes an annual report on the progress in
implementing the Equal Treatment Directives by the Member States (Chopin & Do,
2010); and in the US Attorney General reports to the Congress about the annual re-
ferrals to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. A general legal principle is to consider
group under-representation in obtaining a benefit as a quantitative measure of (in-
direct) discrimination against a protected group. Data collection and statistical data
analysis are recognized as fundamental both in the common law and in the civil
law countries (R. M. Blank et al., 2004; Makkonen, 2006, 2007). It is commonly
agreed, however, that the statistical conclusions establish aprimafacie evidence of
discrimination, which may be rebutted by the respondent using further arguments
(e.g., a genuine occupational requirement or an objective justification). We refer to
(Wingate & Thornton, 2000; Finkelstein & Levin, 2001) for a review of statistical
methods in discrimination litigations. The topic edited by (Kaye & Aickin, 1992)
contains a collection of papers on the subject. A continuously updated topic on sta-
tistical methods and case laws is maintained by (Paetzold et al., 1994). Finally, the
interdisciplinary economic-legal survey by (Donohue, 2007) provides an overview
of the connections between economic models and empirical findings from the one
side, and the US anti-discrimination laws on the other side. A related legal concept
that is worth mentioning is the one of affirmative actions , sometimes called posi-
tive actions , which are a range of policies to overcome and to compensate for past
3
The term “non-discrimination law” recalls a set of negative obligations, while “equality
law” recalls, in addition, a set of positive obligations to reach the ideal of equal treatment
(Bell, 2002).
4
See also the European Network of Legal Experts http://www.non-discrimination.net, and
the Migration Policy Group http://www.migpolgroup.com.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search