Book contents
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Theory of Prioritarianism
- 3 Well-Being Measurement
- 4 Prioritarianism and Optimal Taxation
- 5 Prioritarianism and Measuring Social Progress
- 6 Prioritarianism and Health Policy
- 7 Prioritarianism and Fatality Risk Regulation
- 8 Prioritarianism and Climate Change
- 9 Prioritarianism and Education
- 10 Empirical Research on Ethical Preferences: How Popular is Prioritarianism?
- 11 Prioritarianism and Equality of Opportunity
- 12 Prioritarianism and the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Index
- References
11 - Prioritarianism and Equality of Opportunity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 June 2022
Book contents
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Prioritarianism in Practice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Theory of Prioritarianism
- 3 Well-Being Measurement
- 4 Prioritarianism and Optimal Taxation
- 5 Prioritarianism and Measuring Social Progress
- 6 Prioritarianism and Health Policy
- 7 Prioritarianism and Fatality Risk Regulation
- 8 Prioritarianism and Climate Change
- 9 Prioritarianism and Education
- 10 Empirical Research on Ethical Preferences: How Popular is Prioritarianism?
- 11 Prioritarianism and Equality of Opportunity
- 12 Prioritarianism and the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter asks whether prioritarianism – the view that social welfare orderings should give explicit priority to the worse-off – is consistent with the normative theory of equality of opportunity. We show that there are inherent tensions between some of the axioms underpinning prioritarianism and the principles underlying equality of opportunity; but also that these inconsistencies vanish under plausible adjustments to the domains of two key axioms, namely anonymity and the transfer principle. That is: reconciling prioritarianism and equality of opportunity is possible but allowing room for individual responsibility within prioritarianism requires compromises regarding the nature and scope of both impartiality and inequality aversion. The precise nature of the compromises depends on the specific variant of the theory of equality of opportunity that is adopted, and we define classes of social welfare functions and discuss relevant dominance conditions for six such variants. The conflicts and the paths to reconciliation are illustrated in an application to South Africa between 2008 and 2017, where results suggest broad empirical agreement among the different approaches.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Prioritarianism in Practice , pp. 518 - 571Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Adler, M. (2019). Measuring Social Welfare: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arneson, R. (1989). “Equality of Opportunity for Welfare.” Philosophical Studies, 56: 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. (1970). “On the measurement of inequality.” Journal of Economic Theory, 2: 244–263.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A.B. and Bourguignon, F. (1987). “Income Distribution and Differences in Need.” In Feiwel, G. F., ed., Arrow and the Foundation of the Theory of Economic Policy. London: Macmillan, pp. 350–370.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: T. Payne and Son.Google Scholar
Brophy, T., Branson, N., Daniels, R.C., Leibbrandt, M., Mlatsheni, C. and Woolard, I. (2018). National Income Dynamics Study Panel User Manual. Release 2018 Version 1. www.datafirst.uct.ac.zaGoogle Scholar
Brunori, P., Hufe, P. and Mahler, D.. (2018). “The Roots of Inequality: Estimating Inequality of Opportunity from Regression Trees and Random Forests”, Ifo Working Paper, No. 252, Ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, Munich.Google Scholar
Brunori, P., Peragine, V. and Serlenga, L. (2019). “Upward and downward bias when measuring inequality of opportunity.” Social Choice and Welfare, 52: 635–661.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1981a). “What is equality? Part 1: Equality of welfare.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10: 185–246.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1981b). “What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10: 283–345.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F.H.G. and Peragine, V. (2016). “Individual Responsibility and Equality of Opportunity”. In Adler, M. and Fleurbaey, M., eds., Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 746–784.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. (1995). “Three solutions for the compensation problem.” Journal of Economic Theory, 65: 505–521.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Peragine, V. (2013). “Ex ante versus ex post equality of opportunity.” Economica, 80: 118–130.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., Peragine, V. and Ramos, X. (2017). “Ex-Post Inequality of Opportunity Comparisons.” Social Choice and Welfare, 49: 577–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. and Zeileis, A. (2006). “Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15: 651–674.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (2000). “Equality or Priority?” In Clayton, M. and Williams, A., eds., The Ideal of Equality. Houndmills: Palgrave, pp. 81–125.Google Scholar
Peragine, V. (2004). “Ranking income distributions according to equality of opportunity.” Journal of Economic Inequality, 2: 11–30.Google Scholar
Peragine, V. and Serlenga, L. (2008). “Higher education and equality of opportunity in Italy.” In Bishop, J. and Zheng, B., eds., Research on Economic Inequality, 16: 67–97.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J. (1993). “A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian Planner.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10: 146–166.Google Scholar
Saposnik, R. (1981). “Rank-dominance in Income Distributions.” Public Choice, 36: 147–151Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (1980). “Equality of what?” In McMurrin, S., ed., The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar
Sen, A.K. (2000). “Social Justice and Distribution of Income.” In Atkinson, A.B. and Bourguignon, F., eds., Handbook of Income Distribution: Vol.1. Amsterdam: North Holland, chapter 1.Google Scholar
Van de Gaer, D. (1993). “Equality of opportunity and investment in human capital.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar