Abstract
Youth quotas are a powerful instrument that could ensure the participation of a minimum number of people under a certain age on various political stages. However, even though youth participation is a legitimate political aim, it should be asked whether youth quotas as an instrument are compatible with democratic values. This article will show that we have good reasons to believe that youth quotas are an ageist instrument inasmuch as they discriminate against the elderly. It will be argued that quotas in general are structurally similar to discrimination and that this can also be said of youth quotas and ageism in particular. This constitutes a necessary condition for regarding youth quotas as an ageist instrument. Furthermore, several moral justifications for youth quotas will be examined and rejected, so that two necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for regarding youth quotas as ageist are satisfied. Youth quotas should, therefore, not be used as a political instrument to improve youth participation. Although they might be used in order to achieve a democratic end, they would be undemocratic in themselves, which is why other ways to improve youth participation should be given priority.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
From here on, whenever this article uses the concept of ‘discrimination’, it refers to negative, not positive discrimination.
References
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. (2012). http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/. Accessed 14 March 2014.
Börsch-Supan, A. (2011). Ökonomische Auswirkungen des demografischen Wandels. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 10–11, 19–26.
Esping-Andersen, G.; Sarasa, S. (2002). The generational conflict reconsidered. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(1), 5–21.
fowid. (2012). Religionszugehörigkeit, Deutschland. http://fowid.de/fileadmin/datenarchiv/Religionszugehoerigkeit/Religionszugehoerigkeit_Bevoelkerung_1970_2011.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2014.
Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking. Its levels, method, and point. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harris, J., & Holm, S. (2002). Extending the human lifespan and the precautionary paradox. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27(3), 355–368.
Heathwood, C. (2006). Desire satisfactionism and hedonism. Philosophical Studies, 128(3), Â539–568.
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2006). The badness of discrimination. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 9(2), 167–185.
Manson, N. A. (2002). Formulating the precautionary principle. Environmental, Ethics, 24(3), 263–274.
Nanivadekar, M. (2006). Are quotas a good idea? the indian experience with reserved seats for women. Politics & Gender, 2(1), 119–128.
National Constitution Center. (n. d.). The constitution of the United States of America. http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-14-citizenship-rights. Accessed 14 March 2014.
Schwentker, B., & Vaupel, J. W. (2011). Eine neue Kultur des Wandels. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 10-11, 3–10.
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2009). Bevölkerung Deutschlands bis 2060. 12. koordinierte Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
United Nations. (n. d.). The Universal declaration of human rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/. Accessed 14 March 2014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hainz, T. (2015). Are Youth Quotas a Form of Ageism?. In: Tremmel, J., Mason, A., Godli, P., Dimitrijoski, I. (eds) Youth Quotas and other Efficient Forms of Youth Participation in Ageing Societies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13431-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13431-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13430-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13431-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)