Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-5qtdt Total loading time: 0.326 Render date: 2022-01-22T09:57:19.813Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Publicity, reciprocity, and incentives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2019

Andrew Lister*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

Abstract

This paper mounts a partial defense of the basic structure objection to the egalitarian criticism of productive incentives. The defense is based on the claim that some duties of justice are subject to a reciprocity condition. The paper develops this position via an examination of the debate between Andrew Williams and G. A. Cohen on publicity and incentives. Reciprocity is an intrinsic feature of a relational conception of social justice, not simply a requirement of stability. Not all duties are conditional on reciprocity because some duties are owed to third parties, as well as to their primary targets. Some forms of exploitation may be unconditionally wrong, but not the specific kind of exploitation at stake when talented individuals accept market wages.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

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

Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. “What Is the Point of Equality?Ethics 109 (2): 287337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2010. “The Fundamental Disagreement between Luck Egalitarians and Relational Egalitarians.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (sup1): 123.Google Scholar
Arnold, Denis G., and Bowie, Norman E.. 2003. “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons.” Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (2): 221–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Lawrence C. 1986. Reciprocity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Carens, Joseph H. 1981. Equality, Moral Incentives, and the Market: An Essay in Utopian Politico-Economic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Casal, Paula. 2015. “Marx, Rawls, Cohen, and Feminism.” Hypatia 30 (4): 811–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casal, Paula. 2016. “Mill, Rawls, and Cohen on Incentives and Occupational Freedom.” Utilitas 123.Google Scholar
Ci, Jiwei. 2006. The Two Faces of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1992. Incentives, Inequality, and Community. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, Stephen. 2006. The Second Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, and Fischbacher, Urs. 2005. “The Economics of Strong Reciprocity.” In Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life, edited by Gintis, Herbert, Bowles, Samuel, Boyd, Robert, and Fehr, Ernst, 151–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, Fischbacher, Urs, and Gacther, Simon. 2002. “Strong Reciprocity, Human Cooperation, and the Enforcement of Social Norms.” Human Nature 13: 125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gintis, Herbert, Bowles, Samuel, Boyd, Robert, and Fehr, Ernst, eds. 2005. Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.” American Sociological Review 25 (2): 161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, Thomas C. 1973. “The First Virtue.” Stanford Law Review 25: 286327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” The American Economic Review 35 (4): 519–30.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Heath, Joseph. 2018. “On the Very Idea of a Just Wage.” Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 11 (2): 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1968. The Leviathan. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Jackson, Ben. 2007. Equality and the British Left: A study in Progressive Political Thought, 1900–64. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 2006. “Left-Liberalism Revisited.” In The Egalitarian Conscience, edited by Christine Sypnowich, 932. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. 2008. “Publicity and Egalitarian Justice.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 5 (1): 3049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, Andrew. 2017. “Fact-Sensitivity and the Defining Down Objection.” Res Publica 23 (1): 117–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Simon Cabulea. 2008. “Review of The Two Faces of Justice.” The Philosophical Review 117(3): 448–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1969. “Utilitarianism.” In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. 10, edited by Robson, J. M., 203–60. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 2014. “Are Human Rights Conditional?” In Human Rights and Global Justice: The 10th Kobe Lectures, edited by Sakurai, Tetsu and Usami, Makoto, 1734. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Moon, Donald J. 2015. “Cohen vs. Rawls on Justice and Equality.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 18 (1): 4056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1975. “Libertarianism without Foundations.” Yale Law Journal 85 (1): 136–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narveson, Jan. 1976. “A Puzzle about Economic Justice in Rawls’ Theory.” Social Theory and Practice 4 (1): 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neufeld, Blain, and Chad Van Schoelandt. 2014. “Political Liberalism, Ethos Justice, and Gender Equality.” Law and Philosophy 33: 75104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 2000. “Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (3): 137–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quong, Jonathan. 2010. “Justice Beyond Equality.” Social Theory and Practice 36 (2): 315–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1957. “Justice as Fairness.” The Journal of Philosophy 54 (22): 653–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, Samuel. 2003. “What Is Egalitarianism?Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (1): 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1967. “Isolation, Assurance, and the Social Rate of Discount.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 81 (1): 112–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, Seana Valentine. 2010. “Incentives, Motives, and Talent.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (2): 111–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, Kok-Chor. 2008. “A Defense of Luck Egalitarianism.” Journal of Philosophy 105 (11): 665–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, Patrick. 2010. “Survey Article: Internal Doubts about Cohen’s Rescue of Justice.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (2): 228–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Parijs, Philippe. 2003. “Difference Principles.” In The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, edited by Freeman, Samuel. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, Stuart. 2003. The Civic Minimum: On the Rights and Obligations of Economic Citizenship. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Stuart. 2017. “Should a Minimum Income Be Unconditional?” In Social Rights in Europe in an Age of Austerity, edited by Matteuci, Stefano Civitarese and Halliday, Simon, 179–94. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williams, Andrew. 1998. “Incentives, Inequality, and Publicity.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 27: 225–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Andrew. 2008. “Justice, Incentives, and Constructivism.” Ratio 21 (4): 476–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwolinski, Matt. 2007. “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation.” Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (4): 689727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Publicity, reciprocity, and incentives
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Publicity, reciprocity, and incentives
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Publicity, reciprocity, and incentives
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *