Published Paper Details:

Abstract In an increasingly interconnected yet inequitable world, the pursuit of equity through public policy has become a central challenge for governments. While equality aims for uniform treatment, equity demands targeted interventions to achieve just outcomes, addressing historical and structural disadvantages faced by marginalized groups. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of global inclusion frameworks to evaluate their efficacy in promoting substantive equity. It examines three distinct policy models: the Universalist Welfare State (exemplified by the Nordic countries), the Multiculturalism Model (focusing on Canada), and the Developmental State with Affirmative Action (examining Rwanda's post-conflict framework). Through a qualitative, comparative case study methodology, this research analyzes policy documents, legislative frameworks, and secondary data on socio-economic outcomes. The analysis is structured around four key dimensions: conceptual foundations (equality vs. equity), policy instruments and implementation, outcomes and impact measurement, and contextual adaptability. The findings reveal that no single model is universally superior; rather, effectiveness is contingent on the alignment between policy design, historical context, and institutional capacity. The Nordic model excels in economic redistribution but faces challenges in recognizing ethnic diversity. Canada's multiculturalism fosters cultural recognition but shows gaps in addressing economic disparities. Rwanda's targeted approach has rapidly improved gender parity but operates within a politically constrained environment. The paper concludes that the most effective equity frameworks are hybrid, context-sensitive, and dynamically integrate redistributive measures with recognition politics to address the multifaceted nature of marginalization.