Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-d6ndz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-31T07:28:52.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A LIBERAL EGALITARIAN PARADOX*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2006

ALEXANDER W. CAPPELEN  and
BERTIL TUNGODDEN
ALEXANDER W. CAPPELEN
Affiliation:
The University of Oslo and the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Bergen, Norway.
BERTIL TUNGODDEN
Affiliation:
Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration and Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A liberal egalitarian theory of justice seeks to combine the values of equality, personal freedom, and personal responsibility. It is considered a much more promising position than strict egalitarianism, because it supposedly provides a fairness argument for inequalities reflecting differences in choice. However, we show that it is inherently difficult to fulfill this ambition. We present a liberal egalitarian paradox which shows that there does not exist any robust reward system that satisfies a minimal egalitarian and a minimal liberal requirement. Moreover, we demonstrate how libertarianism may be justified in this framework if we drop the egalitarian condition.

Information

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , November 2006 , pp. 393 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We thank Geir Asheim, Peter Vallentyne, and two anonymous referees for extremely valuable comments on the paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

Anderson, E. 1999. What is the point of equality?. Ethics 109:287–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, R. 1989. Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies 56:159–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossert, W. 1995. Redistribution mechanism based on individual characteristics. Mathematical Social Sciences 29:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossert, W. and Fleurbaey, M.. 1996. Redistribution and compensation. Social Choice and Welfare 13:343–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H.. 2000. Reciprocity, self-interest and the welfare state. Nordic Journal of Political Economy 26:33–54Google Scholar
Cappelen, A. and Tungodden, B.. 2003. How should the costs of compensation be shared?. Unpublished manuscript, Norwegian School of Economics and Business AdministrationGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, A. and Tungodden, B.. 2005. Relocating the responsibility cut: should more responsibility imply less redistribution?. Forthcoming in Politics, Philosophy and EconomicsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99:906–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. 2003. Freedom Evolves. Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1981. What is equality? Part 2: equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10:283–345Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 1995a. Three solutions for the compensation problem. Journal of Economic Theory 6:96–106Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 1995b. Equality and responsibility. European Economic Review 39:683–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 1995c. Equal opportunity or equal social outcome. Economics and Philosophy 11:25–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F. 1999. Cooperative production with unequal skills: the solidarity approach to compensation. Social Choice and Welfare 16:569–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, C. 2001. Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics 82:225–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirrlees, J. A. 1971. An exploration in the theory of optimal taxation. Review of Economic Studies 38:175–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, T. 2002. Concealment and exposure & other essays. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J. 1993. A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22:146–66Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. 1996. Theories of distributive justice. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J. E. 1998. Equality of opportunity. Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J. E. 2002. Equality of opportunity: a progress report. Social Choice and Welfare 19:455–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality reexamined. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Tungodden, B. 2005. Responsibility and redistribution: the case of first best taxation. Social Choice and Welfare 24:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar