er employers or economists.
Those who promote equal opportunity on the grounds that economic efficiency will be promoted at the same time are stat ing, in effect, that existing resource allocations are not eco nomically efficient. Conversely, those who hold that improve ments in equal opportunity must be gained through losses to others in the economy are stating, in effect, that existing resource allocations are economically efficient, and that gains in equal opportunity must involve tradeoffs with economic efficiency, and must be provided at the expense of someone else.
In addition to the relationship which exists between equal opportunity and economic efficiency, there exists the very real question of what exactly is meant by equal opportunity. This 3question is significant, because the relationship between two factors cannot be effectively analyzed, if one has not definedone of the factors.
Equality of opportunity for employment is one form of equal opportunity. Equal opportunity of this type, however, may mean that persons with disabilities must be given an opportunity to demonstrate that they are as productive in a specific function as a person without disabilities. Does such a definition also mean that potential employers must accomodate their facilities and productive processes for the needs of peo ple with disabilities? If the answer is affirmative, and it usually is from equal opportunity advocates, they real costs are involved for employers.
On the one hand, an employer may be required only to modify facilities to accomodate the needs of people with dis abilities. In most cases, such modifications would represent one time costs, a substantial share of which would be borne by society through income tax deductions. A modification of a productive process to accomodate the needs of people with dis abilities, however, might cause a firm's products to become uncompetitive with respect to similar products p...