Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-fsxpr Total loading time: 0.198 Render date: 2021-06-23T18:45:02.180Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

The Principle of Merit and the capital-labour split

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2021

Jeppe von Platz
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Richmond, 410 Westhampton Way, University of Richmond, VA 23173, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Some meritocratic defenders of capitalism rely on the principle that cooperators should receive a share of the product commensurate with their contribution. However, such defences of capitalism fail due to a dilemma. Either they rely on an understanding of contribution that arguably will be reflected by the capital-labour split in suitably idealized capitalist economies, but cannot serve as a plausible standard of merit; or they rely on an interpretation of contribution that is a plausible standard of merit, but which won’t tend to be reflected by the capital-labour split in capitalist economies.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Arnold, N.S. 1985. Capitalists and the ethics of contribution. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15, 87102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, N.S. 1987. Why profits are deserved. Ethics 97, 387402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, D. 2016. Marginally true: the connection of pay to productivity. In The US Labor Market: Questions and Challenges for Public Policy, ed. Strain, M.R.. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Barry, B. 1989. Theories of Justice. Berkeley. CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, H.W. 1979. A game theoretic account of social justice. Theory and Decision 11, 239265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1889. The possibility of a scientific law of wages. Publications of the American Economic Association 4, 3969.Google Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1891. Distribution as determined by a law of rent. Quarterly Journal of Economics 5, 289318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1902. Is authoritative arbitration inevitable? Political Science Quarterly 17, 553567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1908. The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Clark, J.B. 1914. Social Justice Without Socialism. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 1979. The labor theory of value and the concept of exploitation. Philosophy & Public Affairs 8, 338360.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 1983. The structure of proletarian unfreedom. Philosophy & Public Affairs 12, 333.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debreu, G. and Scarf, H. 1963. A limit theorem on the core of an economy. International Economic Review 4, 235246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, T.J. 2010. Desert, democracy, and consumer surplus. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 9, 315338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, J.C. (1975) How to justify a distribution of earnings. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4, 248272.Google Scholar
Epstein, R.A. 1998. Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty with the Common Good. New York, NY: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1970. Justice and personal desert. In Rights and Reason, ed. Friedman, M., May, L., Parsons, K. and Stiff, J., 221250. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1973. Social Philosophy. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
Feldman, F. 2016. Distributive Justice: Getting What We Deserve from our Country. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1992. Game and decision theoretic models in ethics. In Handbook of Game Theory, Vol. 1, ed. Aumann, R.J. and Hart, S., 701702. Edinburgh: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Hart, S. 1989. Shapley value. In The New Palgrave: Game Theory, ed. Eatwell, J., Milgate, M. and Newman, P., 210211. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, D. 2018. Marx, Capital, and the Madness of Economic Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F.A. 1976. Law, Legislation, and Liberty. Vol. 2: The Mirage of Social Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hsieh, N.-H. 2000. Moral desert, fairness and legitimate expectations in the market. Journal of Political Philosophy 8, 91114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, R.Z. 2016. Does productivity still determine worker compensation? Domestic and international evidence. In The US Labor Market: Questions and Challenges for Public Policy, ed. Strain, M.R.. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Mankiw, N.G. 2010a. Defending the one percent. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, 2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mankiw, N.G. 2010b. Spreading the wealth around: reflections inspired by Joe the Plumber. Working Papers, National Bureau of Economic Research 15846.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1890. Principles of Economics, Book 3 (2013 edition). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1990. Market, State, and Community: Theoretical Foundations of Market Socialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. 2001 (revised). Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mulligan, T. 2018. Justice and the Meritocratic State. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nash, J.F. Jr. 1950. The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18, 155162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsaretti, S. 2004. Liberty, Desert, and the Market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullen, J. 2009. The Marginal Productivity of Distribution: A Critical History. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachels, J. 1978. What people deserve. In Justice and Economic Distribution, ed. Arthur, J. and Shaw, W., 150163. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Roth, A.E. (ed.) 1989. Introduction to the Shapley value. In The Shapley Value: Essays in Honor of Lloyd S. Shapley, 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schweickart, D. 2002. After Capitalism. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2017. Collective Choice and Social Welfare: An Expanded Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapley, L.S. 1989. A value for n-person games. In The Shapley Value: Essays in Honor of Lloyd S. Shapley, ed. Roth, A.E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheffrin, S.M. 2013. Tax Fairness and Folk Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sher, G. 1989. Desert. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, H.P. 1989. Individual contribution and just compensation. In The Shapley Value: Essays in Honor of Lloyd S. Shapley, ed. Roth, A.E., 268269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Principle of Merit and the capital-labour split
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Principle of Merit and the capital-labour split
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Principle of Merit and the capital-labour split
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *