On Inequality: A Critical Review (original) (raw)

An Egalitarian Argument Against Reducing Deprivation (Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2017)

Deprivations normally give rise to undeserved inequality. It is commonly thought that one way of improving a situation with respect to equality is by reducing the incidence of deprivations. In this paper I argue that there is at least one respect in which reducing the incidence of deprivations can make things worse from the point of view of equality. While eliminating deprivations leads to the elimination of inequalities, reducing the incidence of deprivations leads to an uneven distribution of the pairwise relations of inequality of a population, which leads to the concentration of pairwise relations of inequality in the worse off. If my argument is correct, egalitarians have reasons to broaden their dimensions of concern: egalitarians should not only be concerned about the unequal distribution of goods, but also about the unequal distribution of pairwise relations of inequality of a population.

Social Inequality, Moral Implications, and Questions for Public Policy

Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2013

Social inequality is a datum that appears to have defied effort in all societies towards a just solution. It implies a lack of equality in social indices as diverse as wealth, education, health, property rights, voting rights, gender, and racial rights among others. There are several perspectives to the issue of which this paper reviews some and submits that there is no easy solution particularly given the economic concept of Pareto optimality. This concept holds that any attempt to reorganize the distribution of society's or organizational resources to favour any individual or group implies hurting someone else or group. The philosophical problem that arises is of a moral dimension: how does one resolve the dilemma of equalizing opportunities when the privileged deserve as much justice and fair treatment as the underprivileged? Also, how does one attempt to sort out the problem of social inequality in the face of Aristotle's concept of distributive justice?

Egalitarian Capitalism (open access book)

Russell Sage Foundation, 2004

Open access at https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/9781610443364\_Kenworthy\_eBookPB.pdf. Declining participation in labor unions, the movement toward a service-based economy, and increased globalization have cast doubt on the extent to which welfare states can continue to stem inequality in market economies over the long-term. Does the new economy render existing models of social assistance obsolete? Do traditional welfare states hamper economic and employment growth, thereby worsening the plight of the poor? Lane Kenworthy offers a rigorous empirical analysis of these questions in Egalitarian Capitalism. The book examines 16 industrialized countries in North America, Western Europe, and Scandinavia—each with different approaches to assisting the poor—to see how successful each has been in developing its economy and curbing inequality over the past twenty years. Kenworthy finds that inequality grew in almost all of these countries, from the most progressive to the least. Using simple but powerful statistical tests, he assesses the theory that inequality is necessary to improve economic growth and reduce poverty. He finds no necessary trade-off between equality and economic growth but discovers some evidence that high minimum wages dampen employment growth in private sector services. Kenworthy suggests that without greater private sector employment, public supports may be unable to adequately sustain living standards for the poor. An equitable growth strategy necessitates a balance of policy options: Creating jobs is aided by loose employment regulation, low payroll taxes, and, in some cases, lower real wages for workers at the bottom of the income spectrum. However, high employment is also facilitated by a system that “makes work pay” with earnings subsidies, workplace flexibilities, financial support for those who are between jobs or unable to work, and universal health and child care coverage. Kenworthy suggests that these strategies, though generally presented as mutually exclusive, could be effectively combined to create a robust, fair economy.

Neoclassical Egalitarianism: The New Face of Economic Orthodoxy for Economic Inequality Resolution

This paper analyzes the issue of inequalities and inadequate responses from mainstream economics. Considering political-economic argumentation, we present arguments based on which it can be explained why confrontation with types of inequalities is so open today. We also believe that the already stated confrontation has elements based on which we can claim that attitude to equalities/inequalities is important for development of identity in the modern era. First, we present certain types of inequalities and discuss about causes of inequality. Afterwards, we come to the conclusion that, nowadays, inequality is analyzed through the orientation that we will call neoclassical egalitarianism. We express criticism about the indicated orientation and show why it is not satisfactory with respect to the articulation of inequalities. We prove that we can adequately discuss about inequalities based on the reflection on structural tendencies.

Inequality as Entitlements over Labor

The modern study of economic inequality is based on the distribution of entitlements over goods and services. But social commentators at least since Rousseau have been concerned with a different aspect of economic inequality: that it implies that one person is entitled to command another person for their own personal ends. I call this inequality as entitlements over labor. I propose to measure entitlements over labor by calculating the extent to which top income groups can afford to buy the labor of others for the purpose of their personal consumption. Unlike standard inequality measures, this measure is not welfarist, but instead has its normative basis in relations of domination, hierarchy and social status between people. I estimate entitlements over labor in three high-inequality and two low-inequality countries and argue that inequality as entitlements over labor is socially and politically salient, capturing a side of inequality neglected by standard measures. (Stone Center on...