Sharing the cake: income distribution and equality

 

Issues in economics: how a given community income might best be distributed from a moral point of view, taking special account o fneeds.

 

Philosophy employed: Sen’s philosophy of social choice; Williams on equality; Rawls’ political philosophy.

 

Argument

 

  1. Contrasts between a utilitarian and a utility-based maximin framework of social choice (from Sen’s ‘Rawls versus Bentham’).  Concentration on utility differences or utility levels. Inability of either system to cope with all three (desirable?) axioms suggested by Sen: Symmetry Preference, Weak Equity, Joint Transfer; and importance of utilitarianism’s difficulty with Weak Equity (‘cripple’ example).
  2. However: -

i.                     Definition of Utilitarianism allow for other – regarding elements in utility functions (Arrow and others)

ii.                   With differing utility functions, doctrine becomes ‘fundamentally anti-egalitarian’ (Sen); but traditional arguments for equal capacities for happiness (Pigou, Harrod, Lerner, Williams…) (Glover: a ‘central feature of utilitarianism is its emphasis on equality’)

  1. Value of Weak Equity Axiom?  Welfarist’ focus exclusively on utility; but happy cripple/champagne addict; Sen’s recognition of this, in ‘Equality of What?’
  2. Rawls’ own analysis, in terms of primary goods, not utility levels.  But primary goods approach still has problems, says Sen: how much/how many questions; fetishism (how fair to Rawls?)
  3. Sen’s subsequent development of Capabilities system (Links via ‘needs’ to Marx/Tawney?) But:

i.                     measurement of definition (paternalism problem?  Who judges?)

ii.                   use of utility information?

iii.                  And, the equality criterion only provides a partial ordering of social states – how might it be supplemented? 

So: theoretical appeal + some practical vagueness?  Nussbaum on the ingredients of the ‘good life’

 

Upshot: some problems all round.  (Which of them are the most serious?)

 

(Dr. J G T Meeks)