Very interesting question- It seems you have already given answers as well.  Since the central idea behind the concepts are on the sameness and fairness, there is argument ( which I too believe) that  sameness ( for example equal  treatment for all) has no meaning as the society is not equal. So special treatments are required for marginalized and vulnerable to get them in the  equitable level.

Dear Kiran,

Equality requires the assigning of the same treatment to all persons (General) despite the variance in their makeup while Equity is the giving of a special, unique or ancillary treatment to the often neglected members in social groups to make them feel respected and feel at par with the other members of the social groups.

However, they are all driven by the ideals or principles of justice and fairness.

Thanks

Dickson Adom

Thanks for sharing. Equity involves trying to understand and give people what they need to enjoy full, healthy lives. Equality, in contrast, aims to ensure that everyone gets the same things in order to enjoy full, healthy lives. Like equity, equality aims to promote fairness and justice, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same things.

Let’s think for a moment about runners sprinting around an oval track during a competition. The concept of equality would have us treat the runners in exactly the same way, ensuring that they all start at the same place on the track. On the surface, this seems fair. But we know that runners in the inside lanes have a distinct advantage over runners in the outer lanes because the distance they have to travel is shorter. As a result, equality – starting at the same place – doesn’t result in fairness.

The concept of equity, in contrast, would lead us to stagger the starting positions of the runners in order to offset the disadvantages facing those in the outer lanes. In this case, different or tailored treatment is a surer path to fairness and justice than the same treatment. The same distinction between equity and equality can be seen when it comes to health and care. For more, you may visit http://sgba-resource.ca/en/concepts/equity/distinguish-between-equity-and-equality/.

Regards

Dear Kiran, 

There is still something else, I think: equality can be administered and preserved mechanically (although it is an ideological principle); Equity implies the continuous interpretation of the context, it presupposes the existence of a human being, who decides every time.

Dickson Adom Sir,

Thanks for your valuable thought.

Pannilage Upali Sir,

Thanks for sharing your views.

Aristidis MatsoukisSir,

Thanks for your opinion about equity & equality and also giving link.

Daniela Sorea Madam,

Thanks for giving views about equity & equality.

Aparna Sathya Murthy,

Thanks for sharing our views.

Equity refers to the system of justice and fairness, where there is an even-handed treatment of all the people.

Equality is when everyone is treated in the same way, without giving any effect to their need and requirements.

The differences between equity and equality are as under:

---Justness and fairness in the manner of treating individuals are called equity. Equality is what we call, the state where everyone is at the same level.

---Equity is a process while equality is the outcome, i.e. equity is the necessary condition to be fulfilled to achieve latter.

---While equity represents impartiality, i.e. the distribution is made in such a way to even opportunities for all the people. Conversely equality indicates uniformity, where everything is evenly distributed among people.

---In equity, the differences are recognized and efforts are made to counteract the manner in which individual opportunities are not equal. On the contrary, equality recognizes sameness and so it aims at treating everyone as equal.

---In equity, all the people can have access to what they need. The equality, in contrast, all the people get the same thing, i.e. rights, resources and opportunities.

http://keydifferences.com/difference-between-equity-and-equality.html

Subhash C. Kundu Sir,

Thanks for your valuable views &also given link.

Thanks, your question sent me off searching for the image I have used many times before in my pre-service teacher education classes, but I found a whole critique and extension of that original image here:

http://culturalorganizing.org/the-problem-with-that-equity-vs-equality-graphic/

Certainly not a simple matter of definition!

Annabelle Leve Madam,

Thanks a lot for giving link.

Hi, 

Equality and equity are sometimes interchangeably used as they are related. Yet, equity involves trying to understand and give people what they need to enjoy full, healthy life; whereas equality aims to ensure that everyone gets the same things in order to enjoy full, healthy lif.

Regards.

I don’t think equity is an agreed term.  Aristidis, above, gives a very clear example where he puts “equality” as equality of opportunity and he puts “equity” as equality of outcome.  Then Subhash’s answer, just as clear, precisely reverses those meanings. 

It would conform to the usual distinction in philosophy to leave out the word “equity” altogether.  Then the two kinds of equality are fairly plain.  Sometimes outcome is called “equality of condition.”  

If you are a neo-liberal, free-market enthusiast, you will want equality of opportunity so everyone can compete on equal terms.  You will reject equality of outcome for that would destroy incentives.  Eq of opp, you will assert, allows a just process. 

If you are a convinced socialist, you will reject eq of opp on the grounds that it leads to a dog-eat-dog unequal society.  You will want eq of cond and insist that those who are less able, or less endowed, or unlucky, should be assisted by the community.  Eq of cond, you will assert, provides a just outcome.  

Legal literature sees a third kind of equality: equality under the law (or, same thing, equal treatment of equal people) and it is a resolution of the conflict between the neo-liberal and the socialist (Aparna will appreciate this).  It accepts BOTH eq of opp AND eq of cond.  How can it do this?  By setting up rules for when, where, how, to whom, each will apply. 

Since the rules must be enforced, this will require a hierarchy of enforcers. Problem solved: those of any given rank will all have the same condition (that is what rank means) and the same opportunity to rise to the next rank.  So within each rank both kinds of equality obtain at all times.  Justice, says the hierarchist, means to each his due.

Such hierarchies run every company, government department, military, and university in the world. 

Here are some references:

S. Feldman, "Economic values and inequality," in Measures of political attitudes, J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, and L. S. Wrightsman Eds., ed San Diego: Academic Press, 1999.

D. Miller, Social justice. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976.

R. Scruton, A dictionary of political thought. London: Pan, 1983.

S. Verba and G. R. Orren, Equality in America. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.

 While working towards community healing, I examine the consumers' definitions of equity, equality, fairness in their respective healing processes.  I find that individuals and collective groups (families, communities, organizations), define and describe "their" meaning to these terms as they attempt to heal and move forward.  I believe it is imperative to understand what others need instead of how we may instill our beliefs of any term or concept onto others.  

The origins of these concepts/terms are closely related and yet have very different meanings to all of us. Whether we are coming from a Sociological or Psychological, or just a lay person's point of view or background.  The previous responses are very clear, similar and diverse.  When I observe these concepts in action, I observe different meanings yet similar resolution for individuals and collective groups.  I believe that the human race, regardless of culture, ethnicity, gender, creed, position in society - all the distinctive themes/categories, need and want the same outcome which is resolution on what is "right" for them and their respective systems.

For myself, I believe in what is right as opposed to fairness which symbolizes sitting on a fence, never resolved on what is right or wrong.  Equitable and equality represent what the core of the human being needs to progress in life. Therefore, I observe and believe that these two concepts/principles provide criteria for what is right or wrong. 

Hi

Equity refers to dealing with justice and fairness, where there the opportunities of living and treatment is not equal for all people. Equality is when everyone is treated in the same way, gain the same chances. 

Liqaa 

Arwa Abdulrasoul Salman Madam,

Thanks for giving valuable answer.

Mike Pepperday ·

Thanks for giving some links.

Patsy Waderker Perry,

Thanks for giving your opinion.

Liqaa Habeb Madam,

Thanks for giving your views related to Equality & Equity.

You are welcome.  :)

Please have a look into this link:

http://sgba-resource.ca/en/concepts/equity/distinguish-between-equity-and-equality/

One of the differences is the fact that equality obviously denotes that everyone is at the same level, whereas equity, in business parlance, denotes the ownership of the shares of a company. Equality alludes to the identical apportionment where dealings, values or qualities are concerned. Equity represents fairness, or what may be termed as the equality of outcomes. This involves factoring in aspects of the system that have put particular groups at a disadvantage.

https://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-equity-and-equality

Anirbid Sircar,

Thanks for giving link.

Mahfuz Judeh Sir,

Thanks for giving your valuable thought &sending  link also.

Dear Dr. Kiran Grover,

Equality and Equity both aim towards success. Equality is treating everyone the same whereas Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful.

Afaq Ahmad Sir,

Thanks for giving your opinion.

 Filippo Salustri,

Thanks for giving your opinion.

Prof. Grover, from my point of view,a relevant issue is that vertical equity implies unequal treatment to those that are unequal. Thus, equality may imply in some instances unfairness

Laura Cabiedes Miragaya Madam,

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Ben Levin Sir,

Thanks for indulging in discussion.

Equality is to give rights to people whose abilities differ from each other and so the differences remain. Justice is to give people their rights but to the extent that they are equal to each other and that they will not be shortened in any aspect of the transaction to digest or take away their rights Forcibly and coerced from it and also means simply will not darken and will not tire and harassing me because I want my right or ask for it. Justice ... Fairness .... And do not lead to bad results such as injustice and oppression, equality ... It is to make everyone in front of you either in any right .. Or tender .. Or the rule If I treated the rich with kindness, so must be treated poor .. And if given poor And that is why the difference is as it is clear to me that justice is a value in itself and is not added to anything in the sense of the demand for justice (no matter how many forms, such as justice). Social, economic, etc.) the essence of creating viable environments at the level of human relationships and systems to grow O our lives without misery, grief and depression and fear of injustice which is the most important and my name from the demand of freedom because without justice, we can not exercise freedom and equality is the practice of the value of whether justice or love of creation or generosity and conviction of any product of my mind or my heart, religious or instinctive Obeia also

Historically, the most important form of equality for peoples was "equality before the law". Because this equality rarely existed: the possessors and dignitaries received justice before justice rather than the poor. Equity as justice in the sense of fairness, on the other hand, is the normative invitation to be just in social dealings with others and to show empathy. The principle of equity also plays a role here.

I think this question has been answered well, but it may be worth drawing out a couple of points to highlight differences between the concepts of equality and equity. Equality is not by itself a normative concept; it simply means sameness with respect to a property, whereas identity is sameness with respect to all properties. As Hein Retter points out "equity" is a legal concept that is a normative notion of fairness that has value as a ground for a legal dispute. Of course "equality" is often used as a normative concept, that, for example, "treatment in law" of people x and y is different and it should not be just because x has more money. The notion of equity (as legal fairness) underpins the normative sense of "equality". I tend to agree with contributors to this thread that equality of resources is not always fair to people because they have different needs and different skills. But the law should treat people the same and not assume some property of an individual, and thereby exclude it from the legal enquiry, that could lead to a false conclusion in a legal case. (I am not a lawyer, so lawyers should feel free to comment.)

The description of the differences between equality and equity by Andrew Powell are really very useful for this discussion. I would just like to point out that common theories of justice take into account the difference between the two terms.

When it comes to justice, there plays an important role (especially in the allocation of scarce but important societal goods): the difference between the principle (A) "to each his own" (= allocation according to individual needs) and (B) "to each the same" (strict application of the principle of equality without taking individual needs into account).

In theories of justice there is also a role: the principle of recognition of the performance of individuals (or groups) for the common good. This point of view cannot be realized by the principle of strict equality. Rather, the principle of "fair" valuation is needed, which is more strongly contained in the term "equity".

Equity implies natural justice. Practically, equity ensures that each person is given the opportunity to succeed.