Equality and Distribution of Resources The question of whether individuals - simply by being members of a particular society are entitled to receive an equal share of that particular society’s resources is one that has been the subject of political and philosophical debates for a long time. Indeed, as Anagnostopoulos (2018) argues, this question is at the heart of the continuing discourse on equality as well as the distribution of a society’s resources. Political philosophers from various traditions and hailing from different regions of the world have continued to grapple with the actual meaning of equality. In particular, the question has always been raised with respect to the rights that individuals are entitled to on account of belonging to a specific society. Further, there has been significant analysis of the specific methods which societies should adopt in the distribution of resources.
Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from acemyhomework.com
Using the work of Anagnostopoulos (2018) and the above considerations as an entry point, this paper will examine various aspects concerning the concept of equality. First, it will consider the theoretical underpinnings of the different schools of thought which have theorized on the concept. In doing this, it will analyze the various modes of thought which exist on the subject of equality. This will be followed by case studies of how various jurisdictions particularly the Nordic countries - across the world have handled the issue of equality and the distribution of resources. Finally, the essay will offer a possible answer to the question of whether individuals should be entitled to an equal share of resources or whether they should be given just enough resources to lead a minimally decent human life.
The Theoretical Underpinnings of the Concept of Equality in Resource Distribution Egalitarianism According to authors like Bedau (2017) and Temkin (2017), the discourse on equality has to begin with a consideration of the entire concept of egalitarianism. As per these authors, egalitarianism refers to the philosophical perspective, which emphasizes equality and equal treatment to all people regardless of their identity. Thus, as per this school of thought, when it comes to the allocation and distribution of resources, one's gender, religion, sex, race, or political persuasion should not be a decisive factor. As Kaufman et al. (2017) argue, the primary tenet of egalitarianism is that all people are fundamentally equal. As such, its primary concern is to examine society from a social and economic perspective to reduce inequality and, therefore, ensuring the equal treatment of diverse groups of people. To this extent, therefore, it can be
argued that according to people who fall under this school of thought, all individuals in a society are entitled to receiving an equal share of resources. Three main questions are typically prioritized whenever the discourse of egalitarianism with respect to equality is introduced. The first question is how people ought to value equality. Here, the question is whether it should be based on intrinsic or instrumental value, or pluralism and monism (Anderson, 1999). The second question is with respect to the concept of equality itself. Here, the issue is about understanding the specific subject of questions surrounding equality. Scholars such as Nozick, for example, contest the very assumptions which undergird the discourse on equality (Parfit, 1997). According to this author, his objection is mainly based on the wrong assumption that there is something to be distributed. He also notes that in society, most of the goods are not amenable neither to distribution nor to redistribution. These are those goods to which certain people already have entitlements or special claims. The third aspect concerns how the responsibility to maintain equality in communities relates to the value of the said equality. It should also be noted that the concept of equality that is based on egalitarianism typically attracts objection based on a concept known as leveling down. In these scenarios, the question one asks is whether those who are higher up on the socio-economic ladder should be brought down to the level of those who are lower or vice-versa should occur. As per the leveling down objection, it is generally understood that it is more effective to attempt to raise those who are lower on the socio-economic rung as opposed to lowering the situation of those who are higher up on the ladder. In his text, Lucas (1977) notes that the ideas which undergird the understanding of egalitarianism typically focus on income inequality and distribution, therefore lending the philosophical thought the nuances of the ideas propounded by the political theorist Karl Marx.
Indeed, it is possible to argue that in the creation of his Marxist philosophy, Marx used egalitarianism as the starting point. Furthermore, John Locke also considered the principles of egalitarianism when he argued that every individual had natural rights which could not be taken away from him or her. Indeed, it is arguable that the work and ideas of these two theorists have been influential in so far as the question of economic equality is concerned. Karl Marx According to Karl Marx, the question of distribution of resources had to emanate from the idea that resources were to be distributed according to people’s needs and not just according to their ability. According to him, the superstructure of capitalism was built on the hoarding of resources by certain groups of people, to the exclusion of others. This state of affairs inevitably led to a situation where there were gross inequalities in the countries where economies were capitalist (Sypnowich, 2017). Prioritizing the needs of people was, therefore, of importance to Karl Marx. In this way, then, his ideas can be used to criticize the very concept of equality. Indeed, in his text, Couch and Bernacchio (2019) argue that even though Karl Marx shared many of the political goals of present-day egalitarians, he did not necessarily share in their egalitarian intuition. Put differently, the Marxian conception of equality was primarily conceived as a political concept and value that was suited to serve and promote the interests of the bourgeois class. Thus, in place of quality, Marx advocated for the abolishment of class society, particularly as it existed in the form of capitalism. In examining the Marxist view of equality and distribution of resources, the work of Couch and Bernacchio (2019) becomes insightful. In particular, these authors argue that Marx’s notion of equality is better understood as radical egalitarianism. In other words, it challenges the right of capitalists to monopolize social surplus as their private property. Additionally, it
proposes a distribution of the surplus resources among the whole community. For this reason, it is arguable that a person belonging to the Marxist school of thought would advocate for the policy where a person is granted just enough resources that will allow them to lead a decent life. However, it will be noted that in the process of measuring people exclusively by the same measure, one loses the nuances of the need that each individual has. Indeed, equality is concerned with handing equal opportunities and resources to every person in a community. This is despite the fact that the needs of individuals typically vary. Therefore, Marx’s vision of equality and distribution of resources centers a radical critique of the superstructure of capitalism. Therborn (2018) notes that since the development of Taylorism in the 19th century, capitalism had been responsible for the introduction of inequality within the working class. This inequality had manifested itself in the form of a vast class of supervisors, managers, and professionals who had better wages and better working conditions compared to other low-skilled groups of workers. This process has then been continued in different fields, with the consequence being inequality in the distribution of resources. Therefore, to achieve equality and to develop a system where every person in a community has the ability to meet their needs requires a complete overhaul of capitalism. This is because, in essence, capitalism is an unethical system that is built on the foundation of exploitation. Within the context of political equality, Marxists argue that this type of equality does not have significant effects on the equal distribution of resources. The undergirding argument is that political equality seeks to give equal rights to every person in a community as long as the rights of private property are not threatened. The protection of private from manifestations of communal agitation, such as workers' participation and community consultation, inevitably leads to the institutionalization of inequality. Therefore, according to the Marxist vision of equality,
the quest to achieve equality or to result to a situation where resources are equally distributed requires a complete overhaul of traditional ownership systems and using more ethical systems of ownership that afford every person the opportunity to access the resources that they need to meet the needs of their lives (Therborn, 2018). John Locke According to John Locke’s treatise on government, he uses the theological tenet of loving one’s neighbor as a foundation on which to theorize on equality. Thus, in his view, the equality of men in nature is so evident in itself and also beyond question. To be human is to understand that other human beings are as deserving of the same rights that one enjoys. In this way, then, there is a mutual obligation on people to develop a balance between rights and duties. One’s right to have society’s resources distributed to them corresponds to another person’s duty to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize another person's right to benefit from society’s resources (Capaldi and Lloyd, 2016). In their work, Capaldi and Lloyd (2016) note that Locke’s philosophy was founded on the idea of individual rights. As a political philosophy, therefore, liberalism is based on ideas of liberty and equality. Not only does it support the notions of civil rights, but it advocates for the freedom of the press as well as corresponding rights of free association, freedom of belief, and free trade. Hunt (2016) also argues that liberalism traces its origins to the work of John Locke, who believed that every man has a natural right to life, liberty, and property. As per Locke, no governing authority had the right to deny these natural rights to individuals. In other words, these rights were inalienable. Scholars have long argued that, as a liberal, Locke was in opposition to absolutism, particularly as it was expressed by instruments of governance. He favored democratic governments whose administration was founded on adherence to the rule of law.
Therefore, the notion of equality, according to Locke, is premised on his understanding of natural rights. In his view, the fact that a person was part of a community meant that they deserved certain rights that only the state could provide. John Locke was also responsible for the development and adoption of the social contract theory in many liberal jurisdictions across the world. According to Hunt (2016), the social contract theory refers to the view that a person's moral or political obligations in a particular society are dependent upon a contract or an agreement among them to form the society in which they live. While Thomas Hobbes first gave it its first moral significance, it has remained the most dominant theory across the political history of the modern West. When juxtaposed with the question of the resources to which citizens of a country are entitled, the social contract theory offers a theoretical foundation that allows one to gain insight into Locke’s understanding of the notion of equality. As a champion of natural rights, Locke believed that society would be at its most natural and peaceful state if all the individuals in the said society had their needs met. This, therefore, meant that governments and other institutions of authority had to develop mechanisms of ensuring that every person in society had a fair share of the resources of that particular community. Indeed, as per Locke, the state of nature and the natural condition of man is that of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one sees best (O'neill, 2008). However, because civilization typically requires the limitation of certain rights, individuals enter into a social contract with each other. The main aim of this contract will be to restructure and regulate the rights which exist in a natural state of events. This means that even though a person has certain natural rights, they will not be free to do anything which they please. Thus, although the state of nature is prepolitical, it is not necessarily pre-moral.
If natural rights were to be given credence, one would see that there is the assumption that people are equal and, therefore, equally bound by the laws of nature. In this regard, therefore, the law of nature - which according to Locke - is the basis of all morality, commands that people should not inflict harm on others, whether based on life, a person's health, liberty, or their possessions (O'neill, 2008). Therefore, in a state of nature, persons are free to pursue their interests. However, because of the social contract, they are limited in the extent to which they can pursue these interests without reservation. Therefore, to compensate individuals for this compromise, society should ensure that each person has access to a fair share of the resources that a society has. It is only when this state has been accomplished that, despite the restrictions which are placed upon persons, societies can be relatively peaceful.
Utilitarianism According to Shaw (2016), utilitarianism is a school of thought which seeks to maximize human happiness. Thus, it is interested in the policies that ensure that the greatest happiness happens to the highest number of people. Within the discourse of equality and the distribution of resources, therefore, utilitarians will be more likely to agitate for and to adopt those policies which maximize pleasure. Attributed to Jeremy Bentham, utilitarianism, therefore, concerns itself with utilitarian ethics, which refers to the notion that some principle or concept - typically happiness or pleasure - should be maximized across society. It is noteworthy that several writers and theorists have always been critical of utilitarian ethics, arguing that, as a philosophy, utilitarianism attempts to justify high inequality in society. An additional note of criticism is that utilitarianism forces people to suffer for the gain of others.
Even so, authors like Shaw (2016) continue to argue that utilitarianism as first developed by Jeremy Bentham and then developed by authors like John Stuart Mill is, in fact, a philosophy which not only agitates for equality in society but which offers different paradigms when it comes to the question of distribution of resources. In their text, Boucher and Kelly (2003) suggest that those who criticize utilitarianism for ignoring inequality are essentially making a pro-capitalist, pro-inequality assumption. In effect, they are making the argument that for a society to maximize happiness, well-being, or even pleasure, then there is a need to have a high level of inequality. However, the vision that this school of thought has is that of maximizing equality. This would mean that when government institutions are developing policies, they will adopt those policies whose aim is to maximize the extent to which people can be beneficiaries of equality. This is because when every person in a particular society benefits from its resources, there is a higher likelihood of pleasure and happiness. It is essential to note that utilitarian ethics also contain an implicit critique of wellreceived notions such as equality. As per utilitarians, maximizing happiness does not necessarily mean that every person in a society has to enjoy a fair share of the resources. It only means that every individual should be entitled to receiving his or her fair share of resources in such a way that will allow the said individual to enjoy a decent life. Indeed, the assumption in such a belief system is that one can objectively determine the minimum share of resources that every individual ought to have before they can be said to be happy (Mill, 2016). This view can be juxtaposed with that of Marxists, who maintain that resources in a society should be distributed according to the need that each person has. This would, however, mean that there would be an
objective test for happiness, which would be agreed upon by all the members of a particular society. To properly understand the relationship between utilitarian ethics and the concept of equality, one has to divorce the idea of happiness from that of equality. Therefore, most utilitarians would advocate for the granting of resources according to one’s needs. Having a method where there is equal division of resources does not pay attention to considerations regarding people who have greater needs than others (Mill, 2016). It is, therefore, possible to conclude that, when it comes to utilitarian ethics, followers of this school of thought would be more interested in ensuring that instead of everyone getting a fair share of the resources, everyone is instead entitled to receiving resources which correspond to his or her needs. This will mean that regardless of what people have, they will still be able to maximize their pleasure and happiness because their most basic needs are met. Equality and Distribution of Resources in the Nordic Countries In his work, Åseskog (2018) notes that the Nordic countries have now developed a reputation for having the lowest income and inequality levels across the globe. Specifically, the five Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have been identified as being the world's most equal on several measures. Due to the example that they have offered the rest of the world, they have been linked to rising economic growth while also fostering social contentment. Rahman (2017) also suggests that the reason for the low levels of inequality in the Nordic countries can be connected to the fact that the said countries are all social-democratic. Thus, even though they are not socialist in the classical sense of the term, it is through their incorporation of certain elements of the socialist model that they can develop societies where
their citizens not only enjoy the fair distribution of resources, but also where the citizens are able to maintain a decent standard of life. It is important to note, however, that the Nordic countries are still run on the general principles of democracy. This means that they are driven by financial markets and not by a central plan. Furthermore, they have an elaborate and detailed system of law which protects personal and corporate property while helping to enforce agreements which people enter with each other. At the same time, some democracies have elements of egalitarianism and socialism. In their work, Tranøy et al. (2020) note that the reason that these Nordic countries can develop societies that take care of their citizens is because of three key elements. The first element is that they show evidence of the use of major egalitarian reforms in their governance structures. The second element is that the countries have put in place substantial welfare states which ensure that the state provides each of the citizens the most basic needs. The final element is the fact of being capitalist (Tranøy et al., 2020). This third element is especially important because it shows that although purely capitalist states have been linked to greater levels of inequality, it is through economic syncretism that capitalist economies can reduce inequality in society. Indeed, as Dovemark et al. (2018) note, the success of Nordic countries with respect to equality undermines the view that the most ideal capitalist economies are those in which there is no state interference and markets are left to run in an unrestrained manner. In his work, Jenkins (2017) uses the Gini coefficient measure of income inequality to examine the extent to which the Nordic countries are equal compared to other countries like the US and the UK. According to the Gini coefficient, 1 represents complete inequality while 0 represents complete equality. As per OECD data, countries such as the US and the UK have a score of 0.39 and 0.35, respectively. While these sores are above the OECD average of 0.31, it is
noteworthy that all the five Nordic countries’ scores ranged between 0.25 and 0.28. These figures show that the Nordic countries have managed to achieve high levels of welfare and wellbeing. Notably, these high levels of welfare are coupled with considerably high levels of economic output, high levels of national social solidarity, and high taxation levels. A review of the Nordic countries reveals that these countries prioritize the well-being of their citizens. In addition to a commitment to ensuring that each citizen enjoys a fair share of the country’s resources, there is also the commitment to ensure that each citizen’s basic needs are met. The high taxation levels of the countries give the country the resources that are needed to ensure that the country’s welfare system is well developed (Jenkins, 2017). Further, the fact that the Nordic countries are mixed economies with strong welfare provisions means that they can create a mechanism of effecting unrestrained markets while also ensuring that their citizens do not suffer from the adverse effects of unrestrained markets. Equal Share of Resources or Enough Resources for Decent Lives? From the above sections, one can conclude that the question of whether to grant citizens an equal share of resources or whether to grant them just enough resources to lead decent lives depends on the nature of society in which one lives as well as the nature of aims and goals that the said society has for itself (Temkin, 2017). The first issue to have in mind is the question of equality and equity. As the work of the various scholars considered in this essay has demonstrated, while equality is concerned with the equal distribution of resources, equity pays more attention to the distribution of resources in such a way that they address the needs that each citizen has. It is possible to argue that the second mechanism is better, particularly when viewed using the utilitarian school of thought. According to the utilitarian model, mere equality does not necessarily improve the lives of citizens. To reduce inequality levels in income and general
standards of living, there is a need to consider the development of strategies that will lead to equity. It is important to note that even where there is a fair distribution of resources, the resources in question may not be sufficient to meet the needs of every person. Further, as has been mentioned in several parts of this paper, one person’s needs may not necessarily be the needs of another person. Thus, ultimately, this fair distribution of resources may result in more inequality. The solution, therefore, is to have a situation where the citizens of a country are provided just enough resources to allow them to lead a decent life. By giving every person the basic facilities they need to lead a life of dignity, a state will essentially be meeting its obligations of the social contract (Jenkins, 2017). Any surplus which is then left over can then either be dedicated to the development of the economies in which people live. Alternatively, the surplus can then be divided equally between the citizens. In this way, there will be a syncretic model that both builds a country’s economy while taking proper care of the citizens. Conclusion In sum, one can argue that to meet the needs of citizens, it may ultimately be beneficial if there were a merging of the two ideals. However, one should be followed by the other. To put it differently, a state should ensure that every citizen is provided with the resources that they need to lead a decent life. After this stage has been accomplished, then the state authorities can utilize the surplus and distribute it equally to the citizens. In doing this, there will be a merging of the egalitarian and utilitarian models of equality in a manner that ultimately benefits the citizens.
References Anagnostopoulos, G., 2018. Justice, Distribution of Resources, and (In) Equalities in Aristotle’s Ideal Constitution. In Democracy, Justice, and Equality in Ancient Greece (pp. 179-223). Springer, Cham. Anderson, E.S., 1999. What is the Point of Equality? Ethics, 109(2), pp.287-337. Anderson, E.S., 1999. What is the Point of Equality? Ethics, 109(2), pp.287-337. Åseskog, B., 2018. National machinery for gender equality in Sweden and other Nordic countries. Manchester University Press. Bedau, H.A., 2017. Egalitarianism and the Idea of Equality. In Equality (pp. 3-27). Routledge. Boucher, D. and Kelly, P., 2003. The social contract from Hobbes to Rawls. Routledge. Capaldi, N. and Lloyd, G., 2016. Liberty and Equality in Political Economy: From Locke Versus Rousseau to the Present. Edward Elgar Publishing. Couch, R. and Bernacchio, C., 2019. The Virtues of Equality and Dissensus: MacIntyre in a Dialogue with Rancière and Mouffe. Journal of Business Ethics, pp.1-10. Dovemark, M., Kosunen, S., Kauko, J., Magnúsdóttir, B., Hansen, P. and Rasmussen, P., 2018. Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: social changes reflected in schooling. Education Inquiry, 9(1), pp.122-141. Hunt Jr, B.A., 2016. Locke on equality. Political Research Quarterly, 69(3), pp.546-556. Jenkins, S., 2017. The measurement of income inequality. In Economic inequality and poverty: International perspectives (pp. 3-38). Routledge.
Kaufman, G., Bernhardt, E. and Goldscheider, F., 2017. Enduring egalitarianism? Family transitions and attitudes toward gender equality in Sweden. Journal of Family Issues, 38(13), pp.1878-1898. Lucas, J.R., 1977. Against equality again. Philosophy, 52(201), pp.255-280. Mill, J.S., 2016. Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge. O'neill, M., 2008. What should egalitarians believe? Philosophy & Public Affairs, 36(2), pp.119156. Parfit, D., 1997. Equality and priority. Ratio, 10(3), pp.202-221. Rahman, M., 2017. Sustainability: The Nordic Model with Special Reference to Norway. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(01), pp.49-60. Shaw, W.H., 2016. Utilitarianism and the Ethics of War. Routledge. Sypnowich, C., 2017. What's Left in egalitarianism? Marxism and the limitations of liberal theories of equality. Philosophy Compass, 12(8), p.e12428. Temkin, L., 2017. Equality as comparative fairness. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(1), pp.4360. Therborn, G., 2018. From Marxism to Post-Marxism Verso Books. Tranøy, B.S., Stamsø, M.A. and Hjertaker, I., 2020. Equality as a driver of inequality? Universalistic welfare, generalised creditworthiness and financialised housing markets. West European Politics, 43(2), pp.390-411.