Yes / In England, social choice in education faces trade-offs between equity and efficiency. The scope of these trade-offs ranges from the introduction of choice to correcting 'market failures' to reduce inequalities and restrict social injustices. The article analyses the English school education system and its relationship with social preferences. The authors argue that the moral and legal need for non-discriminatory education supersedes perceptions of cost-effectiveness and utilitarianism. They consider that the current system has failed owing to inappropriate processes within social and public choice and that a reformed system based on a social democratic imperative will allow closer social integration on the basis of ability rather than privilege.

Despite considerable research efforts, the relationship between inequality and demand for redistribution remains a highly contested topic within comparative political economy. This paper argues that a central yet widely overlooked mechanism linking macro-level income inequality to preferences for redistribution has to with the micro-level implications of certain externalities of inequality. Focusing on fear of crime, as one such externality, I argue that because (i) in- equality and crime are positively related, and (ii) because crime and fear of crime have a negative effect in individual utility, it follows that increasing in- equality should have a positive effect on support for redistribution. Importantly, however, the argument of this paper also recognises that redistribution is but one of several means through which a concern about crime can be addressed, with the most relevant alternatives being increased policing and harsher punitive measures. Drawing on literatures in criminology and political sociology, I theorise that a key determinant of this choice | between redistribution and policing/punishment as alternative approaches to dealing with crime | is the level of ethnic heterogeneity in the population. Taken together, therefore, this paper's argument implies that inequality will have differential effects on support for redistribution in different contexts: in cases where the population is homogenous, fear of crime - and by consequence inequality - will boost demand for redistribution, whilst no such effects will follow in contexts of high heterogeneity. Using a two-step statistical methodology, I analyse Eurobarometer and ESS data from 21 OECD countries and find persuasive empirical support for my theoretical expectations. Fear of crime is more strongly associated to support for redistribution when the level of population heterogeneity remains low, whilst the opposite holds true for the relationship between fear of crime and support for policing and punishment.

This thesis deals with the determinants and mechanisms of individual secularisation processes in a cross-national perspective. In this ‘collected volume’ of six stand-alone articles, I examine religious beliefs and behaviours as well as attitudes towards religion and politics, whereby the validity of the main theories of religious change (classical secularisation theory, existential security hypothesis, supply-side explanations, historical/cultural approaches and conflict theories) are put to an empirical test. The main conclusion is that the fundamental mechanisms suggested by secularisation theories are valid and that we can identify main determinants of religiosity worldwide. However, only a combination of existing approaches is capable of explaining a broad range of the phenomena observed. Chapter 1 (co-authored with Nan Dirk de Graaf and Peter Schmidt) deals with the fundamental mechanisms that facilitate the socialisation of religious beliefs. Under conditions of high inequality, religion acts as a source of social capital that benefits the religious socialisation of individuals outside of the family context. If levels of inequality fall, this ‘social value of religion’ is diminished and religious socialisation depends more strongly on parental efforts, thereby gradually leading to intergenerational secularisation. In Chapter 2 (co-authored with Anja Neundorf) we show that the state in Eastern Europe played a crucial role in de-establishing as well as re-establishing religious plausibility structures, which explains lower levels of religious belief in Cold War cohorts as well as the religious revival after the end of the Cold War. Chapters 3 and 4 examine the topic of religion and politics and the mechanisms behind the support for the 9/11 attacks in the Muslim world. Levels of existential security and income inequality have a strong impact on the preferences for religious politicians in a cross-sectional as well as in a longitudinal perspective. Moreover, religiosity and altruistic behaviour run the risk of being converted into pro-terrorist support under conditions of high levels of inequality and low development levels. The final two chapters show that –in a world-wide comparison development levels, inequality and the Socialist history of countries explain 75% of the variation in religiosity between countries. Furthermore, future developments in religious change will also be subject to changes in fertility. The main drivers of secularisation processes can be identified, but for the majority of the world population these conditions are not met at present, nor will they be met in the near future.

This paper examines the effect of governance on inequality, specifically if improvements in the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators affect inequality as measured by two Gini coefficients: Market Gini, before taxes and redistribution, and Net Gini, after taxes and redistribution. The data for the Gini measurements was taken from the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID) and the data for the Worldwide Governance Indicators was taken from the World Bank. Data for fifteen (15) years, from the start of the Worldwide Governance Indicators until 2013, was combined with data from SWIID for the same years. In all, data from one hundred fifty-six (156) countries with a full set of six (6) indicators for the years that had at least one corresponding Gini measurements were used in this study: in total one thousand seven hundred and forty-seven (1747) observations. In a pooled OLS regression, controlling for growth with the variable GDP per Capita expressed as a per cent (%) change on an annual basis, the individual indicators gave the following results, where a positive sign indicates increased inequality and vice versa: Control of Corruption and Regulatory Quality showed a positive sign for both Gini measurements. Rule of Law, Government Effectiveness, Political Stability and the Absence of Violence/Terrorism, gave a negative sign for both Gini measurements. Voice and Accountability showed a positive sign for Market Gini and a negative sign for Net Gini. The fact that an improvement in Control of Corruption increased inequality both before and after taxes and redistribution was unexpected and should be further researched.

O presente estudo tem como objetivo testar o argumento de que as escolas públicas modificaram a sua estratégia educacional ao buscar o aumento do seu Índice de Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica (IDEB) após 2007 (ano da criação desse índice). A base do argumento é que essa mudança de estratégia foi no sentido de alocar maiores investimentos e esforços educacionais nos alunos com as melhores chances de apresentarem os maiores ganhos de proficiência na Prova Brasil, o que poderia aumentar a desigualdade de proficiência dentro das escolas. Os nossos resultados indicam evidências para rejeitar esse argumento inicial. Há evidências de que as escolas, que aumentaram o IDEB entre 2007 e 2009, reduziram a desigualdade de proficiência dos seus alunos. Além disso, existem evidências de que a desigualdade entre diferentes escolas pode estar aumentando. / The present study aims to test our argument that public schools changed their educational strategies while trying to increase their IDEB (educational quality index) between 2007 and 2009. This argument is about an increase in the educational investments and efforts from schools into their students, specifically those that presented the highest chances to obtain the largest achievement gains. These investments and efforts would contribute to increase the achievement inequality within schools. Ours results shows evidence to reject our argument. There is evidence that these schools contributed to lower the achievement inequality between their students. We also find evidence that achievement inequality may be increasing between schools.

O objetivo principal do presente trabalho foi analisar a estrutura e os condicionantes da desigualdade socioeducacional no Tocantins enquanto um dos determinantes do comportamento da desigualdade regional. Dessa forma, tem a intenção de desenvolver, de forma empírica e conceitual, uma abordagem das relações originais entre educação e desigualdade regional. Além disso, o presente estudo elabora um novo indicador sintético e analítico denominado Índice de Desigualdade Socioeducacional (Idsed), que parte da compreensão de que as relações sociais de produção capitalista são desiguais e projetam tais desigualdades, próprias das condições de acesso ao mercado, na estruturação das escolas, de acordo com os bens materiais e simbólicos que dispõem os beneficiários desse serviço. O caminho percorrido da pesquisa passa pelo crivo da discussão sobre o conceito de região que permeia a Geografia, ligando a uma reflexão sobre globalização, desenvolvimento e desigualdade em contextos regionais. A seguir, discute sobre os indicadores socioeconômicos, fazendo um panorama do desempenho dos indicadores socioeconômicos no Brasil e no Tocantins, além de analisar indicadores educacionais ligados às séries históricas das taxas de transição do ensino fundamental. Finalmente, a cartografia da desigualdade socioeducacional tocantinense é mostrada diante das condições socioeconômicas, socioculturais, infraestruturais e educacionais que permeiam o universo escolar tocantinense através do Idsed. / This research aims to analyze the structure and constraints of the socio educational inequality in Tocantins as one of the determinants of regional inequality behavior. Therefore, it intends to develop an empirical and conceptual way, an approach of the original relations between education and regional inequality. In addition, this research develops a new synthetic and analytical indicator called Socio Education Inequality Index (SEII), in which part of the realization that the social relations of capitalist production are unequal and designed such inequalities, own market access conditions, in the school structuring according to the symbolic and material goods that are available to service’s beneficiaries. The way we in which conduct our research was through of discussions about the region's concept that pervade the Geography, relating to globalization reflection, development and inequality in regional contexts. Then, we discuss the socioeconomic indicators, making an overview of socioeconomics development in Brazil and Tocantins. We also analyze education indicators linked to historical series of transition’s rates from elementary school. Finally, the socio educational inequality’s mapping is presented in front of the socio-economic, socio-cultural, infrastructural and educational conditions which pervade the tocantinense school universe through of Socio Educational Inequality Index.

<p>This thesis treats inequalities of Carlson type, i.e. inequalities of the form</p><p><mml:math><mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>∥f∥</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">≤</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">∏</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>∥f∥</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">θ</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:semantics></mml:math></p><p>where <mml:math><mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:munderover><mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">θ</mml:mo><mml:mn>i </mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:semantics></mml:math> and <i>K</i> is some constant, independent of the function <i>f</i>. <i>X</i> and <mml:math><mml:semantics><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:semantics></mml:math> are normed spaces, embedded in some Hausdorff topological vector space. In most cases, we have <mml:math><mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:semantics></mml:math>, and the spaces involved are weighted Lebesgue spaces on some measure space. For example, the inequality</p><p><mml:math><mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn>0</mml:mn><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">∞</mml:mo></mml:munderover><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic">dx</mml:mi><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">≤</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">π</mml:mo></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced mml:open="(" mml:close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn>0</mml:mn><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">∞</mml:mo></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic">dx</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">/</mml:mo><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced mml:open="(" mml:close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:munderover><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn>0</mml:mn><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">∞</mml:mo></mml:munderover><mml:msup><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn>2 </mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mn>2 </mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic">dx</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">/</mml:mo><mml:mn>4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:semantics></mml:math></p><p>first proved by F. Carlson, is the above inequality with <mml:math><mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:semantics></mml:math>, <mml:math><mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">θ</mml:mo><mml:mn>1 </mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">θ</mml:mo><mml:mn>2 </mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mn>1 </mml:mn><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mrow></mml:semantics></mml:math>, <mml:math><mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">ℝ</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">+</mml:mo><mml:mn>, </mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic">dx</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mn>, </mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn>1 </mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn>2 </mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">ℝ</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">+</mml:mo><mml:mn>, </mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic">dx</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:semantics></mml:math> and <mml:math><mml:semantics><mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn>2 </mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mn>2 </mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">ℝ</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">+</mml:mo><mml:mn>, </mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mn>2 </mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic">dx</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo mml:stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:semantics></mml:math>. In different situations, suffcient, and sometimes necessary, conditions are given on the weights in order for a Carlson type inequality to hold for some constant <i>K</i>. Carlson type inequalities have applications to e.g. moment problems, Fourier analysis, optimal sampling, and interpolation theory.</p>

This thesis treats inequalities of Carlson type, i.e. inequalities of the form &lt;mml:math&gt;&lt;mml:semantics&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;∥f∥&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;x&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;≤&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;K&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;∏&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;i&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;1&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;m&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:msubsup&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;∥f∥&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;A&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;i&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;θ&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;i&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;/mml:msubsup&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:semantics&gt;&lt;/mml:math&gt; where &lt;mml:math&gt;&lt;mml:semantics&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;∑&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;i&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;1&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;m&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;θ&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;i &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;1&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:semantics&gt;&lt;/mml:math&gt; and K is some constant, independent of the function f. X and &lt;mml:math&gt;&lt;mml:semantics&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;A&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;i&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;/mml:semantics&gt;&lt;/mml:math&gt; are normed spaces, embedded in some Hausdorff topological vector space. In most cases, we have &lt;mml:math&gt;&lt;mml:semantics&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;m&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:semantics&gt;&lt;/mml:math&gt;, and the spaces involved are weighted Lebesgue spaces on some measure space. For example, the inequality &lt;mml:math&gt;&lt;mml:semantics&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;∫&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;0&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;∞&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;f&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;(&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;x&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;)&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic"&gt;dx&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;≤&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:msqrt&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;π&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:msqrt&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:msup&gt;&lt;mml:mfenced mml:open="(" mml:close=")"&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;∫&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;0&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;∞&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:msup&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;f&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msup&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;(&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;x&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;)&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic"&gt;dx&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:mfenced&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;1&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;/&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;4&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:msup&gt;&lt;mml:msup&gt;&lt;mml:mfenced mml:open="(" mml:close=")"&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;∫&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;0&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;∞&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:munderover&gt;&lt;mml:msup&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;x&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msup&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:msup&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;f&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msup&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;(&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;x&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;)&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic"&gt;dx&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:mfenced&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;1&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;/&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;4&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:msup&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:semantics&gt;&lt;/mml:math&gt; first proved by F. Carlson, is the above inequality with &lt;mml:math&gt;&lt;mml:semantics&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;m&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:semantics&gt;&lt;/mml:math&gt;, &lt;mml:math&gt;&lt;mml:semantics&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;θ&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;1 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;θ&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mfrac&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;1 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mfrac&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:semantics&gt;&lt;/mml:math&gt;, &lt;mml:math&gt;&lt;mml:semantics&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;X&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;L&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;1&lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;(&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;ℝ&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;+&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;, &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic"&gt;dx&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;)&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;, &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;A&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;1 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;L&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;(&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;ℝ&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;+&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;, &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic"&gt;dx&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;)&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:semantics&gt;&lt;/mml:math&gt; and &lt;mml:math&gt;&lt;mml:semantics&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;A&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;=&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;L&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;(&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;ℝ&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;+&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;, &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:msub&gt;&lt;mml:msup&gt;&lt;mml:mi&gt;x&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;mml:mn&gt;2 &lt;/mml:mn&gt;&lt;/mml:msup&gt;&lt;mml:mi mml:fontstyle="italic"&gt;dx&lt;/mml:mi&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;mml:mo mml:stretchy="false"&gt;)&lt;/mml:mo&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:mrow&gt;&lt;/mml:semantics&gt;&lt;/mml:math&gt;. In different situations, suffcient, and sometimes necessary, conditions are given on the weights in order for a Carlson type inequality to hold for some constant K. Carlson type inequalities have applications to e.g. moment problems, Fourier analysis, optimal sampling, and interpolation theory.

En este trabajo se analiza la desigualdad de oportunidad en ingreso de los jóvenes argentinos. Para la medición de este fenómeno se utiliza información de las encuestas permanentes de hogares realizadas en el país desde el 2004 hasta la actualidad. Se considera el sesgo de selección por co-residencia y dentro del empleo de la muestra, y se lo intenta corregir empleando un modelo de selección múltiple. Para medir el grado de desigualdad de oportunidad se utiliza la metodología presentada en Bourguignon, Ferreira y Menéndez (2007). Los resultados sugieren que mientras la desigualdad de ingresos ha disminuido no parece haber un patrón claro en la desigualdad de oportunidades. / This paper studies inequality of opportunity on earnings among young argentines. It aims to contribute to measure this phenomenon and it uses information from household surveys conducted in Argentina from 2004 to the present. Sample selection into employment and coresidence selection is dealt with a multiple selection model. We consider some econometrics methods implemented by Bourguignon, Ferreira y Menéndez (2007) to measure the degree of inequality of opportunity. The results suggest that while income inequality has decreased there seems no clear pattern of inequality of opportunity.

Este trabalho busca analisar a relação existente entre a distribuição de renda e o crescimento econômico no caso brasileiro desde 1985. Em um primeiro momento, a partir da visão mundial, é feita uma revisão das principais teorias relacionando a desigualdade de renda e o crescimento econômico. É realizada uma revisão das formas de mensuração de desigualdade de renda, e então são mostrados os resultados obtidos pela análise empírica da relação entre desigualdade e crescimento. Na seqüência há uma explanação sobre o histórico da desigualdade no Brasil e são realizados testes empíricos com base nas séries históricas brasileiras de desigualdade e crescimento. A análise será a nível nacional e estadual e compreenderá os testes de convergência Beta e Sigma, utilização de dados em painel com variáveis cointegradas, o cálculo da Fronteira de Possibilidade de Desigualdade e a Razão da Extração da Desigualdade. Por fim, observa-se que a diversidade de abordagens existentes sobre a desigualdade expõe que o tema ainda é de grande relevância e, levando-se em conta o contexto brasileiro de alto nível de desigualdade, essa importância aumenta ainda mais. / This paper aims to analyze the relationship between distribution of income and economic growth in Brazil since 1985. Firstly, the main theories and studies relating income inequality and economic growth are reviewed. Then an explanation about the possible ways to measure income inequality is made, and the results obtained by empirical analysis are shown. Subsequently there is a review about the history of inequality in Brazil and some empirical tests, based on Brazilian historical series of inequality and growth. The analysis will be carried out in national and state levels and will include Beta and Sigma convergence tests, panel data with cointegrated variables and Inequality Possibility Frontier calculus and the Ratio of Maximum Inequality at state level. Finally, we observe that the diversity of approaches on inequality demonstrates that the issue is still of great importance and, taking into account the Brazilian context of high inequality, it becomes even more important