The real meaning of social equality is much disputed, as is evident from chapter 2. Some say that we should be concerned primarily with equality of social status, with things like ‘equal respect’, ‘equal consideration’ or ‘equal concern’ being prime goals in view. While acknowledging these as important goals too, other commentators say that we should first and foremost be concerned instead with equality in the distribution of material goods and services. And even within that realm further disputes arise. Some would want us to pick out certain centrally important goods and services where equality seems to matter more than elsewhere. Or again, some say that we should be primarily concerned with equality of ‘welfare’ (or ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’), and that worrying about equality in the distribution of resources amounts to fetishizing what are merely means towards those other more important ends; others insist that what really matters is equality in the distribution of opportunities, and that looking at the distribution of resources is part (but only part) of that.

Were we constructing our empirical indicators de novo, we might want to try to capture some of those further distinctions. Within the existing panel data there is little that bears on many of those more subtle issues. But what the panels offer in abundance is a wide range of reliable and internationally comparable economic indicators: information about respondents' command over cash resources and how many hours they worked to get them.