Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- List of sources
- Introduction
- Part I Exploitation
- Part II Equality of resources
- Introduction to Part II
- 6 Equality of talent
- 7 Egalitarianism, responsibility, and information
- 8 A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner
- Part III Bargaining theory and justice
- Part IV Public ownership and socialism
- References
- Index
7 - Egalitarianism, responsibility, and information
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- List of sources
- Introduction
- Part I Exploitation
- Part II Equality of resources
- Introduction to Part II
- 6 Equality of talent
- 7 Egalitarianism, responsibility, and information
- 8 A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner
- Part III Bargaining theory and justice
- Part IV Public ownership and socialism
- References
- Index
Summary
Outcome- versus resource-equalizing theories
Radical and liberal theories of egalitarianism are distinguished, in large part, by the differing degrees to which they hold people responsible for their own well-being. The most liberal or individualistic theory calls for equality of opportunity. Once such “starting gate equality,” as Dworkin (1981a) calls it, is guaranteed, then any final outcome is justified, provided certain rules, such as voluntary trading, are observed. At the other pole, the most radical egalitarianism calls for equality of welfare (assuming that interpersonal welfare comparisons can be made, so that such equality makes sense). In between these two extremes are egalitarian proposals that equalize more than conventional opportunities, yet less than full welfare. Sen (1980) speaks of equality of basic capabilities as a goal; implementing that requires more than starting gate equality, because some will require more resources than others to attain the same capabilities. Meeting basic needs is another objective. Equality of needs fulfillment is perhaps less radical than equality of basic capabilities and more radical than equality of opportunity. Rawls (1971) takes equality of primary goods as a benchmark; he distinguishes primary goods from welfare, but includes among them goods that are more complicated than conventional resources and opportunities, all of which are supposed inputs into any conception of welfare. One could imagine proposing an egalitarianism that equalized some quite measurable outcome across populations, such as infant mortality.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Egalitarian PerspectivesEssays in Philosophical Economics, pp. 148 - 178Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1994