Download
1 / 15
321 likes | 1.2k Views
Equality of Resources. Ronald Dworkin. A Constraint on Equality. Dworkin’s theory of equality of resources buys into a fundamental assumption about the nature of justice and equality: A distribution is just or equal only if it is ambition-sensitive and endowment-insensitive .
E N D
Equality of Resources Ronald Dworkin
A Constraint on Equality • Dworkin’s theory of equality of resources buys into a fundamental assumption about the nature of justice and equality: • A distribution is just or equal only if it is ambition-sensitive and endowment-insensitive. • ‘Ambition sensitive’ refers to how hard an individual tries and what their goals are. It captures the idea that we should be rewarded on the basis of our effort and goals. • ‘Endowment insensitive’ refers to our innate and natural talents as well as our social position in society –things for which we have no control or choice over.
Ambition Sensitivity and Endowment Insensitivity • For a view of justice to be ambition sensitive and endowment insensitive is for it to recognize the following: • We are to be rewarded for what we strive for and the effort we put into things. • Things, such as our, natural talents and social position are not things that are up to us, and as a consequence we should not have an advantage merely in virtue of it. • For a theory of justice to be endowment insensitive is for it to equalize our starting position and allow what we are rewarded for to be a function of our merit through effort.
Dworkin’s Envy Test for A Just Distribution • Suppose that everyone has the same natural talents, and that all of the goods of society are up for sale in a giant auction. • Suppose everyone has the same amount of money to spend, 100. • The envy test for a just distribution says the following: The distribution of bundles of goods, D, at the end of the auction is just only if no one envy’s another person’s bundle. • The central idea is that the requirement of justice has been satisfied because no one can complain about what they have, since they all had the option of bidding for all of the bundles.
Example of Envy Test • Suppose Jim wants to be a surfer and Bill wants to be an investment banker. And thus Jim spends all of his money on getting a surfing education and living near the nice beaches, while Jim spends all of his money on getting an MBA and being a top banker. • At the end of the auction if neither Jim nor Bill envies the other’s bundle, the distribution is just. • The reason why the distribution is just is because both had an equal chance of bidding on the other’s bundle. If Bill really wanted to be a surfer, he could have bid on Jim’s bundle; likewise if Jim wanted to be a banker, he could have bid on Bill’s bundle.
The problem of natural disadvantage • The auction works for providing an envy free society, one that is just, only if no one is naturally disadvantaged. • However, the condition of society is such that some people are naturally disadvantaged. If the auction is run, naturally disadvantaged people would have to expend resources just to get to a level of ability that allows for them to live a somewhat normal life. • Natural disadvantage can be understood in a number of ways: • Physical handicaps –being physically disabled. • Mental handicaps –being mentally disabled. • Skill handicaps –having a set of skills that are not marketable.
A solution to the problem of natural disadvantage • One way to solve the problem of natural disadvantage is by taking the total holdings of society, say 1000, and redistributing to those that suffer from natural disadvantages, some amount of money. • However, one problem with this approach is that it cannot solve for extreme natural disadvantages. What if some disadvantages are too costly to allow anyone to live the life they want? What if some disadvantages are so extreme that no amount of redistribution will help the person get to a normal level of ability to live a valuable life?
The Insurance Market • Another way to solve the problem of natural disadvantage is to adopt, as Dworkin proposes, an insurance market. • In an insurance market each person is allowed not only to bid for bundles of goods in the auction, but also to buy insurance against negative outcomes. • For example, if John likes to go sky diving and doesn’t care about injury, he may not buy that much insurance to protect against it. Rather, he spends his money on sky diving. In contrast, if Bill is highly risk averse, he may spend much more money on insurance of all kinds, and spend most of his days at home working in a safe place.
What the insurance market can and cannot do • On Dworkin’s equality of resources we are aiming for an ambition sensitive and endowment insensitive distribution of goods. In the end the test is the envy test, a distribution is just only if at the end of the auction no one envies anyone else. • Given the problem of natural disadvantages, and the insurance solution, we must recognize the following: • Complete equality is impossible, and thus we need a second-best. Some disadvantages can never be accommodated sufficiently. • The insurance market allows us to get closer to an ambition-sensitive and endowment-insensitive distribution.
Considering Natural Disadvantage • It is important in considering natural disadvantage to look at several problems that underlie it. • What counts as a disadvantage? Certain kinds of physical labor were advantageous earlier in history, now certain kinds of capacities for abstract thought are advantageous. • Is it clear that disadvantages are stable over the course of one’s life? A person’s life can start out with a disadvantage, but change later when technology provides the person with a way of fixing their disadvantage. • Does it even make sense to talk of any disadvantage being natural? Why isn’t it the case that all advantage and disadvantage is relative to an environment.
Dworkin on the Centrality of Choice • An important component of Dworkin’s view is the centrality of choice. • A just distribution must identify ‘which aspects of any person’s economic position flow from his choices and which from advantages and disadvantages that were not matters of choice. • Thus, it must be true that we can do the following: • Make a clear demarcation metaphysically between advantages and disadvantages due to nature. • Identify and measure those features practically in determining a just distribution.
Practical Proposals I ‘Stakeholder society’ is proposed by Bruce Ackerman. The core idea is to give everyone a lump-sum one-time ‘stake’ of 80,000 when they graduate from high school, financed by a 2% wealth tax. People could use this stake as they see fit. One could pay for more education and training, buy a house or a car, or do what ever they see fit. By giving the one time equalizing payment we give everyone the same opportunity to pursue their ambition. The payment is endowment insensitive, but equalizing in opportunity to a greater degree on the ambition side.
Practical Proposal II ‘Basic income’ is proposed by Philippe Van Parijs. The view maintains that everyone whether employed or not should get a basic income of 5,000 per year. Some people would object to the view arguing that giving 5,000 to everyone would mean that some people that live unproductive lives, in terms of increasing social capital, benefit without helping. In some sense, giving everyone 5,000 creates or supports free-riding for those who do not return some good to the social pool.
Resources vs. Welfare • Dworkin’s view says that what we ought to care about is equality in the dimension of resources. But we might question why resources matter? • Everyone wants resources to pursue the goal of attaining some end they value. So, what appears to matter is not the distribution of resources alone, but the end result that each strives for. • We can contrast Dworkin’s view against a view that prizes equality of welfare, where ‘welfare’ is understood as some end state. • How might one argue against equality of welfare?
The Problem of Expensive Tastes • The problem of expensive tastes shows why equality of resources maybe a better view than equality of welfare. • Jim likes expensive wine, and is only happy with expensive wine. Bill likes cheap beer and is just as happy with cheap beer than Jim is with expensive wine. • If equality of welfare is what matters, then society is required to give a larger proportion of resources to Jim, since it costs more to make him happy than it does cost to make Bill equally happy. • Intuitively, it seems incorrect to give a large and unequal amount of resources to one person just to make sure they are equally as happy as everyone else.
