nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

7. Economy and Desert

verfasst von : Joseph de la Torre Dwyer

Erschienen in: Chance, Merit, and Economic Inequality

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Seeking to translate the preceding chapters into policy, this chapter lays a foundation for a “correspondence” between desert-basis and reward by examining what philosophers and economists have recommended as the specific distributive justice grounds for receiving or holding some as yet undefined economic good. Among three contenders, this chapter argues that institutions ought to seek to reward “value contributed” and operationalizes this concept with a specific empirical measure.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Liberty and Just Deserts: Slaves, Dynasties, and Moral Agents

Nächstes Kapitel Measure for Merit

Knight (2011).

We want a theory that is “feasible and fair,” in which we have “sufficient information” to make a “reasonable approximation” of the “relative effort levels of individuals across an entire economy.” Wolff (2003), 223–224.

While the current criminal justice system imposes negative consequences in order to (1) protect society from this individual, (2) prevent this individual and others from committing future crimes, and (3) punish this individual for their wrongdoing, a Just Deserts system would only affect the punish component, although likely in very interesting ways. Cf. Matravers (2011); Feinberg (1970f), 215.

Although, for an account of retributive justice as distributive, cf. Sher (1987), 76–82.

Although criminal justice and health may more naturally elicit an impetus toward observed outcome egalitarianism (less crime and illness) over an ex post distribution of desert. Cf. Segall (2009).

Lamont (1994), 45–46.

“What people deserve on the basis of virtue is not money but happiness.” Hurka (2003), 59.

Lamont and Favor (2014); Lamont (1994).

Miller (1976), Miller (1989); Riley (1989).

Sadurski (1985); Milne (1986).

Dick (1975); Lamont (1997); For a fascinating and persuasive alternative account, notably attractive for its focus on autonomy, cf. Sher (1987), chap. 3.

Cf. Pistolesi (2007); Lefranc et al. (2009); Aaberge et al. (2011); Almås et al. (2011).

Arneson (2007), 272ff.

Lamont and Favor (2014).

Miller (1999c), 134; Also, cf. Hurka (2003), 58.

Sher (1987), 53–68, 99–103.

While this is too quick, I ignore this for reasons of time and space. Further, Olsaretti has examined costs incurred at length. Olsaretti (2004), 49–55.

Thus “wages, capital income, and all public cash transfers” is far too broad for a principle of desert. Aaberge et al. (2011); This is even more true for “labor, business, [and] capital [income, plus] realized capital gains, as well as.. unemployment insurance, sickness pay, parental leave payment, and pensions.” This is because it is not the use of these compensation benefits but the value of these benefits to those who do and do not use these benefits that counts. For an overexpansive measurement of total market income in Sweden, cf. Björklund et al. (2011).

While earnings accounted for 98.6% of compensation in 1929, today they represent only 68.4% of compensation. As might be expected, employees with higher earnings have not only greater absolute values of benefits but greater percentage values of benefits within total compensation. Thus, the ideal Just Deserts policy would use total employee compensation as the outcome of interest. Unfortunately, the best dataset for the Just Deserts proposal does not include dollar values of benefits, so we make do with a second-best model in Chap. 12 that measures labor income. Kaufman and Hotchkiss (2000), 422; BLS—Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014); Total employee compensation should not be confused with “differential compensation.” Cf. Dick (1975).

Under ideal circumstances, I think we would use the compensation offered within an ideal market rather than actual compensation within an actual market. To see the practical difficulties to which this is the ideal solution, cf. Sidgwick (1999), 54–55.

For example, Mazumder’s recent work uses “family income.” Mazumder (2001a).

Lefranc et al. (2009); Marrero and Rodríguez (2013).

This is to say, no group, whether that be a “family,” “sex,” “ethnos,” and so on, may “deserve” a reward, although they may be entitled to such through other ethical principles. While Rawls’ minimax solution applies to groups, he says nothing about intragroup distributions, which I take to be a shortcoming. Just as an adequate poverty measure must be sensitive to not only the average “poverty gap” but also the distribution of resources among the impoverished, so must we seek a just distribution of resources among the members of each statistically distinct group. Cf. Sen (1976).

Note that the measure of compensation required for a Just Deserts proposal is not technically the same as compensation as portrayed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These statistics are interested in the total compensation per hour of work while we are interested in the total compensation per year of time. For more details on total employee compensation survey data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cf. BLS—Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015).

26 U.S. Code § 63 - Taxable Income Defined. 2000.

Aaberge, Rolf, Magne Mogstad, and Vitorocco Peragine. 2011. Measuring Long-Term Inequality of Opportunity. Journal of Public Economics 95 (3): 193–204.CrossRef

Abramovitz, Mimi. 1996. Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy from Colonial Times to the Present. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Adler, Matthew. 2011. Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Allaire, J.J., et al. 2018. rmarkdown: Dynamic Documents for R. R package version 1.11.

Almås, Ingvild, et al. 2011. Measuring Unfair (in)Equality. Journal of Public Economics 95 (7–8): 488–499.CrossRef

Alperovitz, Gar, and Lew Daly. 2008. Unjust Deserts: How the Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance and Why We Should Take It Back. New York, NY: The New Press.

Alstott, Anne, and Bruce A. Ackerman. 1999. The Stakeholder Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. What Is the Point of Equality? Ethics 109 (2): 287–337.CrossRef

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2015. The Fundamental Disagreement Between Luck Egalitarians and Relational Egalitarians. In Distributive Justice and Access to Advantage: G. A. Cohen’s Egalitarianism, ed. Alexander Kaufman, 21–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean Ethics. 2nd ed. Trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.

Arneson, Richard J. 1989. Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare. Philosophical Studies 56 (1): 77–93.CrossRef

Arneson, Richard J. 1990. Liberalism, Distributive Subjectivism, and Equal Opportunity for Welfare. Philosophy & Public Affairs 19 (2): 158–194.

Arneson, Richard J. 2003. The Smart Theory of Moral Responsibility. In Desert and Justice, ed. Serena Olsaretti, 233–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Arneson, Richard J. 2004. Luck Egalitarianism Interpreted and Defended. Philosophical Topics 32 (1/2): 1–20.CrossRef

Arneson, Richard J. 2007. Desert and Equality. In Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and Value of Equality, ed. Nils Holtug and Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, 262–293. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Atkinson, Anthony Barnes. 2015. Inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Atkinson, Anthony Barnes, and Joseph E. Stiglitz. 1980. Lectures on Public Economics. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Baker, Michael, and Gary Solon. 1999. Earnings Dynamics and Inequality Among Canadian Men, 1976–1992: Evidence from Longitudinal Income Tax Records. Working Paper 7370. NBER - National Bureau of Economic Research.

Barrett, Malcolm. 2018. ggdag: Analyze and Create Elegant Directed Acyclic Graphs. R package version 0.1.0.

Barry, Brian. 1965. Political Argument. New York, NY: Humanities Press.

Barry, Brian. 1991. Liberty and Justice: Essays in Political Theory. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BEA - Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2015. Table 6.6D. Wages and Salaries Per Full-Time Equivalent Employee by Industry. http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=2005&903=201&906=q&905=2014&910=x&911=0.

Becker, Gary S. 1988. Family Economics and Macro Behavior. American Economic Review 78: 1–13.

Beckert, Jens. 2008. Inherited Wealth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Bedau, Hugo. 1967. Radical Egalitarianism. In Nomos IX, ed. R. Pennock and J. Chapman, 3–27. Palo Alto, CA: Atherton Press

Behrman, Jere R., and Paul Tarbman. 1985. Intergenerational Earnings Mobility in the United States: Some Estimates and a Test of Becker’s Intergenerational Endowments Model. The Review of Economics and Statistics 67 (1): 144–151.CrossRef

Benshalom, Ilan, and Kendra Stead. 2010. Values and (Market) Valuations: A Critique of the Endowment Tax Consensus. Northwestern University Law Review 104 (4): 1511–1558.

Benus, Jacob, and James N. Morgan. 1975. Time Period, Unit of Analysis, and Income Concept in the Analysis of Income Distribution. In The Personal Distribution of Income and Wealth. National Bureau of Economic Research Studies in Income and Wealth, ed. James D. Smith, vol. 39. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Björklund, Anders, Markus Jäntti, and John E. Roemer. 2011. Equality of Opportunity and the Distribution of Long-Run Income in Sweden. Discussion Paper 5466. Bonn: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA).

BLS - Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.

Titel: Economy and Desert
verfasst von: Joseph de la Torre Dwyer
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Chance, Merit, and Economic Inequality
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21125-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-21126-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21126-4_7