Researchers have advanced different theories on the determinants of inequality. Some researchers believe that inequality can be traced back to inequality of opportunities, namely, unequal access to opportunities arising from circumstances outside the individual’s control, including parental background, gender, ethnicity, and religion. The major proponents of this theory (also identified as luck egalitarianism by philosophers and political scientists) are, among others, John Roemer (2009), Xavier Ramos and Dirk Van de Gaer (2012), Marc Fleurbaey and Vito Peragine (2013), and Gustavo Marrero Juan Gabriel Rodriguez (2013). Those economists believe that the “circumstances” a person is born into—such as gender, location, and parental, social, and economic background—should not determine outcomes but that the individual’s achievements in life should depend only on effort and innate ability. The principle is based on ideas developed by a long list of influential thinkers on issues of fairness and rights that underscore fairness of process and opportunities rather than outcomes (Dworkin 1981a, 1981b; Rawls 1971).

To address the rising income inequality and in response to these developments in economic theories, in 2013, the World Bank Group redefined its mission and gave itself two goals: ending extreme poverty by 2030 and boosting shared prosperity (World Bank 2013c). The twin-goal paradigm adopts a multidisciplinary approach recognizing that sustainable development can occur only when countries achieve progress in both monetary and nonmonetary dimensions of welfare. At the heart of the twin goals is the normative principle laid out by Basu (2001, 2006), which states that one should focus on the country’s “quintile income” (per capita income of the poorest 20 percent of the country) in evaluating a country’s well-being (Basu 2013). In other words, to help the poor and achieve real welfare for all, countries must adopt sound and robust economic policies while also promoting equal access to and participation in all aspects of the economic, social, and political arenas, including, among others, education, health care, water, sanitation, and essential infrastructure. This “new” World Bank mission contends that (a) unless all members of society partake in the development of the country, that country cannot possibly eradicate poverty and move toward shared prosperity; and (b) without institutions that encourage the ruling majorities to share resources equitably, the existing inequality among sectors of society will likely perpetuate over time, and the traditionally marginalized sectors will be further excluded and trapped in a cycle of low income and few opportunities for generations.

Among the factors that can hamper equality are laws and regulations that exclude certain sectors of society from reaping the benefits of economic growth. Such exclusion happens when minorities are discouraged and, at times, prevented from participating in the development of a country because of prejudice, racial stereotypes, and discriminatory cultural attitudes by the ruling majority. Often, those attitudes are enshrined in the laws that perpetually reinforce—both conceptually and in practice—the economic marginalization of members of society who could otherwise be a force for economic progress. Initial studies suggest that such discriminatory legal frameworks represent real costs for the economy that could be prevented. For example, a recent World Bank study on the cost of excluding minorities in Eastern Europe quantified the annual productivity losses resulting from Roma exclusion in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Serbia to range from €230 million to €900 million (World Bank 2010). Another World Bank study on the exclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) individuals in India shows that the cost of such discrimination in employment and health sectors in the country could be as high as US$30.8 billion (Badgett 2014).

Discrimination against ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities is widely documented by international institutions and human rights groups. The most obvious manifestations of such divisions are the ongoing civil conflicts and the surge of the extremist group Daesh in the Middle East, which followed the Arab Spring and are, arguably, the consequence of deep-rooted hostility between Shia and Sunni Muslims **.** The immediate and long-term economic consequences of those wars in the region are incalculable. Similar struggles have affected Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Pakistan, South Sudan, and Sudan for many years (Lattimer and Verbakel 2015). But even in non-war-torn countries, minorities often are the people most discriminated against. Following the economic downturn of 2008, racial discrimination in the workplace increased, posing, according to recent International Labour Office studies, tough questions about policies that have existed in the past decade (ILO 2011a). In the report titled _State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2015_ , Minority Rights Group International reports that in Southeast Asia in 2014, minorities were evicted to make way for infrastructure and high-income housing developments in urban centers in Cambodia and Thailand. Similarly, in Myanmar, the Rohingya urban minority populations in Sittwe were at times openly discriminated against and violently targeted (Grant 2015, 148).

Discrimination often seems to go hand-in-hand with poverty and marginalization. In Vietnam, World Bank data show minorities face more barriers to obtaining access to education, credit, land, and the marketplace than do the Kinh majorAnti-Discrimination Law and Shared Prosperity 7