John Rawls. Parts
I and II of Justice as Fairness: A
Restatement (Harvard University Press, 2001). Groups 1-3
Bertil Tungodden
and Peter Vallentyne. “Who Are the Least Advantaged?” Chapter 7 of Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and
Value of Equality (Oxford University Press, 2007). Optional
I am still struggling to appreciate Rawls’ “difference principle.” My problems stem from the idea that, from a practical standpoint, policymakers should only pursue policies that provide the most benefit to the least well off. This seems that it could be detrimental to the economic welfare of society overall for two reasons: (1) imagine two policies- policy A, which would yield $5,000 to the most -advantaged and 100 to the least-advantaged, and policy B, which would yield $200 to the most-advantaged and $101 to the least-advantaged (Dollar amounts are used only for illustrative purposes to represent value). The difference principle suggests that policy B should be pursued. Is this really just? Policies should consider society as a whole, not just the rich, and not just the poor either. And society as a whole would benefit more ($5,200 vs $301) with policy A than with policy B.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the difference principle is not feasible. How can one really evaluate the long-term implications of policies like this? Perhaps choosing policy A would not be maximin for the least-advantaged immediately, but in the long run it would lead to other policies that would lift up the poor even greater than policy B would immediately. It wouldn't be hard to imagine this: a policy that makes society better off overall would eventually lead to better standards of living for everyone in it, including the least-advantaged, whereas maximin policies would make the least-advantaged better off immediately, but in the long run would be worse off for society overall and thus hinder the least-advantaged in future policy options. Thus, my problem is that the difference principle doesn't deal with the absolute long-term policy outcomes (which would be impossible to calculate), and only looks at the immediate result of the impact on the poor, possibly to the detriment to society as a whole.