1 Introduction
Affirmative action can be described as a policy instrument that should ameliorate
the adverse effects of discrimination on affected groups of individuals.1 Affirmative
action programs are a frequently observed policy instrument which usually gives rise
to intense public discussions in countries where those policies are in fact implemented.
One of the reasons for this controversy seems to be the fact that its implementation
goes beyond formal equal treatment considerations by addressing discriminated groups
directly which is, for example, reflected by phrases like ‘positive discrimination’, or
‘preferential treatment’ as synonyms for affirmative action. However, even in contem-
porary societies in which formal equality is legally guaranteed and executed, there
exists empirical evidence of ongoing discrimination with respect to specific minority
groups. Hence, although open discrimination is prohibited, some minority groups may
be disadvantaged out of reasons for which they cannot be held ethically responsi-
ble.2 In such cases in which formal ‘equal treatment of equals’-legislation is ineffective
because individuals are not ex-ante equal, the implementation of affirmative action
policies could be justified on ethical grounds; see Loury (1981) and Loury (2002).
However, opponents of affirmative action do not only criticize the, from their perspec-
tive, formal violation of the equal treatment principle but also they refer to potential
adverse consequences with respect to effort incentives. The following statement by
Thomas Sowell from his book “Affirmative Action Around the World” reflects the con-
cern of those opponents that there could exist a trade-off between affirmative action
(i.e. preferential treatment) and social efficiency due to potential disincentive effects
with respect to effort provision:
Both preferred and non-preferred groups can slacken their efforts - the former
because working to their fullest capacity is unnecessary and the latter because
working to their fullest capacity can prove to be futile. [...] While affirmative
action policies are often thought of, by advocates and critics alike, as a transfer
of benefits from one group to another, there can also be net losses of benefits
1 Discrimination is interpreted here as a disadvantage of a group of individuals in different social
contexts that is based on some kind of exogenous marker, e. g. race, gender, or nationality, that
is (at least initially) not related to these contexts and for which the members of these groups
are personally not responsible. Alternatively, more shortly and less technical, discrimination can
be described as “allowing racial identification [or gender, nationality etc.] to have a place in an
individual´s life chances”; see Arrow (1998), p. 91.
2This persistence of discrimination could, for instance, be interpreted as the consequence of historical
discrimination that affects negatively the contemporaneous generation, e.g. if investment in
human capital depends on the historical segregation of work and living places along races; see
Lundberg (1998).