Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:49:18.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reformulating Equality of Resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Christian Arnsperger
Christian Arnsperger
Affiliation:
FNRS and Université catholique de Louvain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ronald Dworkin's (1981) theory of equality of resources draws heavily on conceptual tools developed in economic theory. His criterion for a just distribution of resources is closely connected with two economic ideas: first, the idea that a distribution of resources reflects a concern for equality if it is envy-free; second, the idea that such an envy-free distribution of resources is attainable as a competitive equilibrium from equal split. The objective of this paper is to show that the criterion of equality of resources has been misinterpreted by normative economics, largely due to Dworkin's own lack of precision, and that it needs to be reformulated in order to be intelligible. The dimensions along which the reformulation is needed concern (1) the nature of the preferences used in what Dworkin calls the ‘envy test’ and (2) the nature of the envy test itself.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 1997 , pp. 61 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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

Arnsperger, C. 1994. ‘Envy-freeness and distributive justice’. Journal of Economic Surveys, 8:155–86Google Scholar
Debreu, G. 1959. Theory of Value. Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
Debreu, G. 1982. ‘Existence of competitive equilibrium’. In Handbook of Mathematical Economics, Volume 2. Arrow, K. and Intriligator, M. (eds.). North-HollandGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1981. ‘What is equality? Part II: equality of resources’. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10:283–345Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 1994. ‘On fair compensation’. Theory and Decision, 36:277–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F.. 1993. ‘Fair allocation with unequal production skills: the noenvy approach to compensation’. Mathematical Social Sciences, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. and McPherson, M.. 1993. ‘Taking ethics seriously: economics and contemporary moral philosophy’. Journal of Economic Literature, 31:671–731Google Scholar
Iturbe, I. and Nieto, J.. 1992. ‘On fair allocations and monetary compensation’, Economic Theory, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
Kolm, S.-C. 1971. Justice et Équité, Éditions du CNRSGoogle Scholar
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. and Green, J.. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Mongin, P., and d'Aspremont, C.. 1996. ‘Utility theory and ethics’. Forthcoming in Handbook of Utility Theory. Barbera, S., Hammond, P. and Seidl, C. (eds.). KluwerGoogle Scholar
Rakowski, E. 1991. Equal Justice. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J. 1996. Theories of Distributive Justice. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Thomson, W. 1982. ‘Equity in exchange economies’. Journal of Economic Theory, 18:217–44Google Scholar
Thomson, W. 1995. The Theory of Fair Allocation. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Thomson, W. and Varian, H.. 1985. ‘Theories of justice based on symmetry’. In Social Coals and Social Organization. Hurwicz, L. et al. (ed.). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Trout Rader, J. 1964. ‘Edgeworth exchange and general economic equilibrium’. Yale Economic Papers, 14:132–80Google Scholar
Varian, H. 1974. ‘Equity, envy and efficiency’. Journal of Economic Theory, 9:63–91Google Scholar
Varian, H. 1985. ‘Dworkin on equality of resources’. Economics and Philosophy, 1:110–25Google Scholar