Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:21:15.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISABILITY, STATUS ENHANCEMENT, PERSONAL ENHANCEMENT AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Jonathan Wolff
Jonathan Wolff*
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It often appears that the most appropriate form of addressing disadvantage related to disability is through policies that can be called “status enhancements”: changes to the social, cultural and material environment so that the difficulties experienced by those with impairments are reduced, even eradicated. However, status enhancements can also have their limitations. This paper compares the relative merits of policies of status enhancement and “personal enhancement”: changes to the disabled person. It then takes up the question of how to assess the priority of the claims of disabled people in the face of scarcity of resources for which there can be many competing social claims, arguing for the theory of “declustering disadvantage”.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 49 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arneson, R. 1989. Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies 56: 77–93.Google Scholar
Burchardt, T. 2004. Capabilities and disability: the capabilities framework and the social model of disability’. Disability & Society 19: 735–51.Google Scholar
Casal, P. 2007. Why sufficiency is not enough. Ethics 117: 296–326.Google Scholar
Dolan, P. and Kahneman, D. 2008. Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. The Economic Journal 118: 215–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1981. What is equality Part 2: equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10: 283–345.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1992. Local justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Klinenberg, E. 2002. Heat wave. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmot, M. 2004. Status syndrome. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 1999. Principles of social justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2000. Women and human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe Richards, J. 1997. Equality of opportunity. Ratio 10: 253–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1980. Equality of what? In Tanner lectures on human values, ed. McMurrin, S., 195–220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R. G. 2005. The impact of inequality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wolff, J. 2002. Addressing disadvantage and the human good. Journal of Applied Philosophy 19: 207–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, J. 2007. Equality: the recent history of an idea. Journal of Moral Philosophy 4: 125–36.Google Scholar
Wolff, J. forthcoming. Disability among equals. In Philosophy and Disability, ed. Brownlee, K. and Cureton, A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, J. and de-Shalit, A. 2007. Disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar