C4.3 Group Equity
Ethical Integrity. Does the system satisfy justice requirements across time, groups, and power?
Pass threshold
Disparity reduction ≥5 percentage points every 5 years, convergence trajectory toward <20% disparities within 30 years, on each declared axis, non-citizen residents included
Clause by clause:
- Disparity reduction ≥5 percentage points every 5 years
- convergence trajectory toward <20% disparities within 30 years
Every clause: on each declared axis, non-citizen residents included.
What it asks
Close historical disparities between groups rather than perpetuate them through "neutral" policies, on the axes salient in the entry's society (race, ethnicity, gender, caste, religion or citizenship), non-citizen residents included.
Why it matters
Colorblind or gender-neutral policies ignoring structural disparities merely replicate existing hierarchies. True equity requires deliberately disproportionate benefit flows to communities facing disproportionate harms—not as charity but as justice.
How it is measured
Disparity: the gap between the median household income, and wealth where published, of the least and most advantaged groups on each declared axis, as a percentage of the most advantaged group's median, from national household surveys. Axes are declared in the entry's scope declaration (protocol 3.3); non-citizen residents are included in the population measured and counted as a group where citizenship is a salient axis. Reduction is the fall in each gap in percentage points per 5 years; convergence is whether the trend reaches the threshold's level within 30 years. Disproportionate benefit flows are evidence for the trajectory, not a separate test.
Indicators
national household income and wealth surveys, by declared group.
Evidence of need
Black household median wealth: $24,100 vs $188,200 white (87% gap). Black women 5.56x trafficking vulnerability; Native women 8.75x. Gender wage gap persists: women earn 80-84% of male wages. Systems perpetuating these disparities fail ethical standards.
How scores are anchored
1.0, pass
Explicit, disproportionate (not merely equal) benefit flows to historically disadvantaged groups. CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): "PTF deliberately targets disadvantaged communities first (example: 150%+ proportional benefits during rollout)."
0.5, partial
Formal equality without reparative mechanisms, or genuine effort with unclear/unspecified reach. Integral (0.5): "Democratic architecture prevents elite capture... but no explicit reparative mechanisms are discussed... how the system repairs centuries of accumulated disparity" remains unaddressed.
0.0, structural failure
Formally neutral policy in a context of large documented disparities, with no active correction. Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.0): "'Colorblind' markets replicate structural racism. Without active intervention, discriminatory outcomes persist across generations."
v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (R4, R6, G3; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.
Normative roots
From N1 (Human Flourishing) + N7 (Anti-Capture).
How the systems score
0.5, partial
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Participatory Economics, Integral, Degrowth Economics, Nordic Social Democracy, Market Socialism, Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism, Georgism / LVT, Ostrom Commons, Islamic Finance, Mutual Credit / LETS, State Capitalism / Singapore, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, MMT + Job Guarantee, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Stakeholder Capitalism, Doughnut Economics, Centrally Planned Socialism
0.0, structural failure
Status Quo Market Capitalism, State Capitalism / China, State Capitalism / Qatar, Libertarian Minarchism
Sources
Definition: Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V). Anchors: Paper Appendix H.7.