Abstract
In the previous chapter we were concerned with principles governing the distribution of general purchasing power or consumption opportunities. We saw that varying degrees of inequality were possible as solutions to the problem of distribution, consistent with the requirements of justice. Let us suppose, then, that we are social planners confronted with an unequal distribution of income. Let us also suppose that we are convinced that a more equal distribution of resources would raise social welfare; in the contractarian framework we are clearly supposing that the existing degree of inequality is greater than would be justified by assumptions about risk-aversion behind the veil-of-ignorance. The question to be discussed in this chapter is: under what circumstances, if ever, would it be right for us as planners to aim for a further redistribution in respect of certain specific commodities, rather than a redistribution of general purchasing power?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
See A. J. Culyer, The Political Economy of Social Policy (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1980) pp. 64–9.
James Tobin, ‘On Limiting the Domain of Inequality’, Journal of Law and Economics, XIII 2 (1970) pp. 263–77,
reprinted in Edmund S. Phelps (ed.). Economic Justice (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973) pp. 447–63.
Julian Le Grand, The Strategy of Equality (London: Allen & Unwin, 1982).
Compare Le Grand, The Strategy of Equality, p. 133.
K. J. Arrow, ‘Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care’, American Economic Review, LIII 5 (1963) pp. 941–73,
reprinted in M. H. Cooper and A.J. Culyer (eds), Health Economics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973).
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1974) p. 269.
For these claims, compare Edgar K. Browning, ‘The Externality Argument for In-Kind Transfers: Some Critical Remarks’, Kyklos, XXVIII (1975) pp. 526–44,
and David Heald, ‘The Rehabilitation of the Market in Social Policy’ in Noel Timms (ed.), Social Welfare: Why and How? (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980) esp. pp. 58–64.
H. M. Hochman and J. D. Rogers, ‘Pareto-Optimal Redistribution’, American Economic Review, LIX 2 (1969) pp. 542–57.
For a review of the literature on the collective good/free rider problem on which this paragraph rests, see Dennis C. Mueller, Public Choice (Cambridge University Press, 1979).
The argument that the British National Health Service can be justified by this sort of argument is clearly expounded in A. J. Culyer, Need and the National Health Service (London: Martin Robertson, 1976) ch. 7. This argument is criticised in Robert Sugden, ‘Altruism, Duty and the Welfare State’ in Noel Timms (ed.). Social Welfare: Why and How?, pp. 165–77.
See Lester C. Thurow, ‘Government Expenditures: Cash or In-Kind Aid?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, V 4 (1976) pp. 361–81.
David E. Butler and Donald Stokes, Political Change in Britain, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan, 1974) ch. 14.
Ralph Harris and Arthur Seldon, Choice in Welfare 1965 (London: Institute for Economic Affairs, 1965) tables XXIII and XXVI.
The 1970 survey supports the interpretation of the trend in Butler and Stokes — see Ralph Harris and Arthur Seldon, Choice in Welfare 1970 (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1971) table XI.
For a different, but suggestive, sort of evidence about the extent of specific egalitarian sentiments, see Samuel Brittain, Is There An Economic Consensus? An Attitude Survey (London: Macmillan, 1973).
K. R. Cooke and F. M. Staden, The Impact of the Mobility Allowance: An Evaluative Study (London: HMSO, 1981).
For details on the policy background, see also Kenneth Cooke, A Study of Child Beneficiaries of the Mobility Allowance (University of York, Social Policy Research Unit, Working Papers, March 1979) ch. 2.
F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960).
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty in H. B. Acton (ed.), John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government (London: Dent, 1972) p. 117.
The distinction has a long literature going back in the modern discussion to Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, 3rd edn (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967), in which meaning is thought to be internal to some social activities.
For a clear introduction, see John Rawls, ‘Two Concepts of Rules’, Philosophical Review, LXIV (1955) pp. 3–32,
reprinted in Philippa Foot (ed.). Theories of Ethics (Oxford University Press, 1967) pp. 144–70.
Compare also J. R. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge University Press, 1969) pp. 50–3.
See H. L. A. Hart, ‘Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment’ in Punishment and Responsibility (London: Oxford University Press, 1973 reprint) pp. 1–27.
Bernard Williams, ‘The Idea of Equality’ in P. Laslettand and W. G. Runciman, Philosophy, Politics and Society, series 2 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962) p. 121.
Amy Gutman, Liberal Equality (Cambridge University Press, 1980) pp.104–5.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, pp. 232–5.
Martin L. Weitzman, ‘Is the Price System or Rationing More Effective in Getting a Commodity to Those who Need It Most?’, Bell Journal of Economics. VIII 2 (1977) pp. 517–24.
For these systems see Alan Maynard, Health Care In The European Community (London: Croom Helm, 1975),
and Malcolm G. Taylor, Health Insurance and Canadian Public Policy (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1978).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1983 Albert Weale
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weale, A. (1983). Specific Egalitarianism. In: Political Theory and Social Policy. Studies in Social Policy. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17144-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17144-6_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-26417-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-17144-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)