Equality of opportunity, moral hazard and the timing of luck (original) (raw)
Abstract
Equality of opportunity is usually defined as a situation where the effect of circumstances on outcome is nullified (compensation principle) and effort is rewarded (reward principle). We propose a new version of the reward principle based on the idea that effort deserves reward for it is costly. We show that luck can be introduced in two ways in the definition of these principles, depending on whether the correlation between luck and circumstances should be nullified and whether the correlation between luck and effort should be rewarded. In this regard, the timing of luck with respect to effort decisions is crucial, as is exemplified by moral hazard where effort choice influences the lottery of future uncertain events.
Access this article
Subscribe and save
- Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
- Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
- Cancel anytime View plans
Buy Now
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Moral Luck
Chapter © 2019

Notes
- Of course, the principle is meaningless if society does not value the outcome realized with effort as input. Thus in the background, the outcome introduced in Sect. 2.2 below is assumed to be of value to all individuals and then to society.
- If work duration is statutory and differs across firms, it can be said that it is a circumstance. It should be compensated and in fact the cost of working more should be more compensated than the cost of working less. The principle of compensation can be useful if there is full cardinality and comparability of the cost of effort.
- See for instance Brown et al. (2011) and Wager et al. (2013).
- See for instance Fleurbaey (2008), or Ramos and Van de gaer (2016) for a recent survey
- We will later signal the rare instances where the assumption of a metric space is required.
- In the rest, for notational simplicity, we omit this adjustment.
- Some may contend that the pure pleasure of gambling remains intact even if outcomes are equalized ex post. However, casual empiricism suggests that the thrill of poker games is higher when monetary gains are at stake, compared to high-school games where the only stake is a handful of matchsticks.
- Of course, one may contend that the tax treatment of gambling gains does not simply reflect collective preference for redistribution but also reflects the government’s objective to provide incentives to participate in revenue-generating gambling.
- In fact, such positions might echo the previous discussion on the preference for skewness in gambling contexts: the asymmetric compensation for luck would lead to a skewed distribution of the consequences of genetic luck that would be welfare enhancing, from the ex-ante perspective where genetic endowments have not been drawn.
- Strictly speaking, introducing distribution functions and cumulative distribution functions, as we do here, presupposes that the set \({\mathcal {L}}^r\) be a metric space. We make this assumption for ease of notations. However, the results derived below could generalize easily to the case where \({\mathcal {L}}^r\) is not a metric space by using Dirac mass distributions on the universe of luck.
- Effort is cleaned from the impact of circumstances [see Roemer (1993) and Lefranc and Trannoy (2017)].
References
- Anderson E (1999) What is the point of equality? Ethics 109(2):287–337
Article Google Scholar - Arneson R (1989) Equality and equal opportunity of welfare. Philos Stud 56:77–93
Article Google Scholar - Arneson R (2004) Luck egalitarianism interpreted and defended. Philos Topics 32(2):1–20
Article Google Scholar - Brown JE, Chatterjee N, Younger J, Mackey S (2011) Towards a physiology-based measure of pain: patterns of human brain activity distinguish painful from non-painful thermal stimulation. PLOS One 6(9):1–8
Google Scholar - Cappelen AW, Tungodden B (2006) A liberal Egalitarian paradox. Econ Philos 22(03):393–408
Article Google Scholar - Chiu H (2010) Skewness preference, risk-taking and expected utility maximisation. Geneva Risk Insur Rev 2:108–129
Article Google Scholar - Cohen GA (1989) On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99:906–944
Article Google Scholar - Cunha F, Heckman J (2007) The technology of skill formation. Am Econ Rev 97(2):31–47
Article Google Scholar - Dworkin R (1981a) What is equality. part 1: equality of welfare. Philos Public Affairs 10:185–246
Google Scholar - Dworkin R (1981b) What is equality. part 2: equality of ressources. Philos Public Affairs 10:283–345
Google Scholar - Dworkin R (2000) Sovereign virtue: the theory and practice of equality. Harvard University Press, USA
Google Scholar - Fleurbaey M (2008) Fairness, responsibility and welfare. Oxford University Press, Oxford
- Fleurbaey M (2010) Assessing risky social situations. J Political Econ 118(4):649–680
Article Google Scholar - Fleurbaey M, Schokkaert E (2009) Unfair inequalities in health and health care. J Health Econ 28(1):73–90
Article Google Scholar - Frank R (2016) Success and luck: good fortune and the myth of meritocracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Book Google Scholar - Garcia-gomez P, Schokkaert E, Van Ourti T, Bago d’Uva T (2015) Inequity in the face of death. Health Econ 24(10):1348–1367
Article Google Scholar - Golec J, Tamarkin M (1998) Gamblers favor skewness, not risk, at the horse track. J Political Econ 106:205–225
Article Google Scholar - Hamermesh DS, Biddle JE (1994) Beauty and the labor market. Am Econ Rev 84(5):1174–1194
Google Scholar - Hurley S (2003) Justice, luck and knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar - Kahneman D, Wakker PP, Sarin R (1997) Back to Bentham? explorations of experienced utility. Q J Econ 112(2):375
Article Google Scholar - Le Grand J (1991) Equity and choice. Harper Collins, London
Google Scholar - Lefranc A, Pistolesi N, Trannoy A (2009) Equality of opportunity and luck: definitions and testable conditions, with an application to income in france (1979–2000). J Public Econ 93(11–12):1189–1207
Article Google Scholar - Lefranc A, Trannoy A (2017) The correlation between effort and circumstances in an uncertain world, mimeo
- Ramos X, Van de gaer D (2016) Approaches to inequality of opportunity: principles, measures, and evidence. J Econ Surv 30(5):855–883
Article Google Scholar - Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar - Roemer J (1993) A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philos Public Affairs 22(2):146–166
Google Scholar - Roemer J (1998) Equality of opportunity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar - Savage L (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York
Google Scholar - Scheffler S (2003) What is egalitrianism? Philos Public Affairs 31(1):5–39
Article Google Scholar - Vallentyne P (1997) Self-ownership and equality: brute luck, gifts, universal dominance, and leximin. Ethics 107(2):321–343
Article Google Scholar - Wager TD, Atlas LY, Lindquist MA, Roy M, Woo C-W, Kross E (2013) An fmri-based neurologic signature of physical pain. N Engl J Med 368(15):1388–1397 (PMID: 23574118)
Article Google Scholar
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Marc Fleurbaey and two anonymous referees for useful suggestions. Lefranc acknowledges the support of the project Labex MME-DII (ANR11-LBX-0023-01).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
- University of Cergy-Pontoise, THEMA and IZA, Cergy, France
Arnaud Lefranc - Aix-Marseille University(Aix-Marseille School of Economics), CNRS and EHESS, Marseille, France
Alain Trannoy
Authors
- Arnaud Lefranc
- Alain Trannoy
Corresponding author
Correspondence toAlain Trannoy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lefranc, A., Trannoy, A. Equality of opportunity, moral hazard and the timing of luck.Soc Choice Welf 49, 469–497 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-017-1054-8
- Received: 19 February 2016
- Accepted: 20 April 2017
- Published: 30 May 2017
- Issue date: December 2017
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-017-1054-8