Jump to content

Justice and the Market: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Disambiguated: Galbraith → James K. Galbraith
m manual clean up & typo fixing, replaced: Invisible Hand → invisible hand, removed references to Wikipedia articles (2) using AWB (9946)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Orphan|date=August 2012}}
{{Orphan|date=August 2012}}


[[Justice]] and the [[market]] is an ethical perspective based upon the allocation of scarce resources within a society. The allocation of resources depends upon governmental policies and the societal attitudes of the individuals who exist within the society. Personal perspectives are based upon ones circle of [[moral]] concern or those who the individual deems worthy of moral consideration.<ref>Laham. s.(2009). Expanding the Moral Circle: Inclusion and Exclusion Mindsets and the Circle of Moral Regard. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology'', 45(1). Pg. 250–253</ref>
[[Justice]] and the [[market]] is an ethical perspective based upon the allocation of scarce resources within a society. The allocation of resources depends upon governmental policies and the societal attitudes of the individuals who exist within the society. Personal perspectives are based upon ones circle of [[moral]] concern or those who the individual deems worthy of moral consideration.<ref>Laham. s.(2009). Expanding the Moral Circle: Inclusion and Exclusion Mindsets and the Circle of Moral Regard. ''Journal of Experimental Social Psychology'', 45(1). Pg. 250–253</ref>


Philosophers, economists and [[politician]]s have sought to answer the question of which members of society deserve material rewards and how to decide what deserving is based upon. Perspectives of [[distributive justice]] vary from [[collectivism]] to extreme [[self-sufficiency]]; these perspectives vary between the importance of the group or individual respectively. Positions on distributive justice incorporate moral and [[political philosophies]] to form the extremes<ref>Stanford Encyclopedia of philosphy. [online] Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/ [accessed 21 May 2012]</ref> of [[communism]] (left wing) and [[libertarianism]] (right-wing) that exist on a continuum scale.
Philosophers, economists and [[politician]]s have sought to answer the question of which members of society deserve material rewards and how to decide what deserving is based upon. Perspectives of [[distributive justice]] vary from [[collectivism]] to extreme [[self-sufficiency]]; these perspectives vary between the importance of the group or individual respectively. Positions on distributive justice incorporate moral and [[political philosophies]] to form the extremes<ref>Stanford Encyclopedia of philosphy. [online] Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/ [accessed 21 May 2012]</ref> of [[communism]] (left wing) and [[libertarianism]] (right-wing) that exist on a continuum scale.
Line 11: Line 11:


Distributive justice relates to the principle of fairness in the allocation of wealth, income, power and opportunities.<ref name=one>Sandel, M. J. (2009) Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Distributive justice relates to the principle of fairness in the allocation of wealth, income, power and opportunities.<ref name=one>Sandel, M. J. (2009) Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
</ref> Many theoretical paradigms have been developed to approach distributive justice such as Adam Smith’s [[Invisible Hand]], Karl Marx’s [[Socialist]] view of Communism and John Rawls [[Original position]] on Inequality.
</ref> Many theoretical paradigms have been developed to approach distributive justice such as Adam Smith’s [[invisible hand]], Karl Marx’s [[Socialist]] view of Communism and John Rawls [[Original position]] on Inequality.


==Libertarianism==
==Libertarianism==
Line 21: Line 21:
{{Main|Capitalism}}
{{Main|Capitalism}}


[[Adam Smith]]'s idea of the invisible hand was a founding contribution to explain resource allocation within a society. The Invisible Hand metaphor portrayed an aggregated market created by the self-interest of those involved, and grounded in the notion that through fulfillment of one's own aspirations, society would benefit.<ref>Smith, A. (Ed.). (1976). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.</ref><ref>Smith, A. (Ed.). (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Peterfield, Hampshire: Harriman House.</ref> This idea formed the foundation of [[laissez-faire]] economic philosophy and subsequent [[neoclassical economics]], where [[Milton Friedman]]’s ideas about economic systems lay.<ref name=capitalism>Capitalism. [online] Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism [accessed 15 April 2012]</ref> The free market originated from the concept of the invisible hand, and eventuates in a [[Meritocracy|meritocratic society]] with resources allocated on the basis of merit. Modern representations of this exemplify perfect free market capitalism.
[[Adam Smith]]'s idea of the invisible hand was a founding contribution to explain resource allocation within a society. The invisible hand metaphor portrayed an aggregated market created by the self-interest of those involved, and grounded in the notion that through fulfillment of one's own aspirations, society would benefit.<ref>Smith, A. (Ed.). (1976). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.</ref><ref>Smith, A. (Ed.). (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Peterfield, Hampshire: Harriman House.</ref> This idea formed the foundation of [[laissez-faire]] economic philosophy and subsequent [[neoclassical economics]], where [[Milton Friedman]]’s ideas about economic systems lay. The free market originated from the concept of the invisible hand, and eventuates in a [[Meritocracy|meritocratic society]] with resources allocated on the basis of merit. Modern representations of this exemplify perfect free market capitalism.


===Criticism of capitalism===
===Criticism of capitalism===
The Invisible Hand approach, or pure free market capitalism, assumes that a competitive market allocates resources in an appropriate manner, however Stephen LeRoy highlighted the debate that ensued following the recent financial crisis upon whether this assumption holds true for modern economies.<ref>Stephen LeRoy, Is the Invisible Hand Still Relevant. [online] Available at http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-14.html [accessed 16 April 2012].</ref> [[Thorstein Veblen]] in [[The Theory of the Leisure Class]] (1899)<ref name=v>Veblen. T. (Ed.). (2007). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
The invisible hand approach, or pure free market capitalism, assumes that a competitive market allocates resources in an appropriate manner, however Stephen LeRoy highlighted the debate that ensued following the recent financial crisis upon whether this assumption holds true for modern economies.<ref>Stephen LeRoy, Is the Invisible Hand Still Relevant. [online] Available at http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-14.html [accessed 16 April 2012].</ref> [[Thorstein Veblen]] in [[The Theory of the Leisure Class]] (1899)<ref name=v>Veblen. T. (Ed.). (2007). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
</ref> showed that the wealthy [[conspicuous consumption|conspicuously consumed]] their riches to display their success to others. This calls attention to the inefficiencies of the capitalist system. [[James K. Galbraith|Galbraith]]’s prolific writings centered around the [[market power]] of large corporations. He posits that the rise in the power of corporations and their associated advertising, dictates that [[classical economics|classical economic]] theory is ineffectual, and new economic theory should be developed.<ref>Galbraith, J. K. (1998). The Affluent Society (40th Anniversary ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
</ref> showed that the wealthy [[conspicuous consumption|conspicuously consumed]] their riches to display their success to others. This calls attention to the inefficiencies of the capitalist system. [[James K. Galbraith|Galbraith]]’s prolific writings centered around the [[market power]] of large corporations. He posits that the rise in the power of corporations and their associated advertising, dictates that [[classical economics|classical economic]] theory is ineffectual, and new economic theory should be developed.<ref>Galbraith, J. K. (1998). The Affluent Society (40th Anniversary ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
</ref> Critics of Galbraith objected to the fact that the focus of his writings were the people as opposed to academics, and thus imply that his answers to economic problems are too simplistic.<ref>Krugman, P. (1994). Peddling prosperity: Economic sense and nonsense in an age of diminished expectations. New York: W. W. Norton Inc.
</ref> Critics of Galbraith objected to the fact that the focus of his writings were the people as opposed to academics, and thus imply that his answers to economic problems are too simplistic.<ref>Krugman, P. (1994). Peddling prosperity: Economic sense and nonsense in an age of diminished expectations. New York: W. W. Norton Inc.
Line 35: Line 35:


[[Karl Marx]] in [[The Communist Manifesto]] postulated that the era of feudal aristocracy and the capitalism experienced in 1847 at the time of its writing, would be replaced with communism, or as we now know it, a socialist society.<ref>Marx K. & Engels F. (Ed.). (2008) The Communist Manifesto London:Pluto Press.
[[Karl Marx]] in [[The Communist Manifesto]] postulated that the era of feudal aristocracy and the capitalism experienced in 1847 at the time of its writing, would be replaced with communism, or as we now know it, a socialist society.<ref>Marx K. & Engels F. (Ed.). (2008) The Communist Manifesto London:Pluto Press.
</ref> Communists from a Marxian perspective are described as persons that understand the world and are enlightened to the interests of the proletariat. Marx surmised that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” <ref>Marx K. (2000) The class struggles in France. Moscow: Progress Publishers.</ref> refers to rule by the working class and would see the battle of [[democracy]] as won.
</ref> Communists from a Marxian perspective are described as persons that understand the world and are enlightened to the interests of the proletariat. Marx surmised that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” <ref>Marx K. (2000) The class struggles in France. Moscow: Progress Publishers.</ref> refers to rule by the working class and would see the battle of [[democracy]] as won.


In this scenario members of a society share common ownership of the means of production and rewards from that production. The resultant society gains and allocates resources according to the quote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”.<ref>Marx K. (1937) Marx:Critique of the Gotha Program. Co-operative Publishing Society of
In this scenario members of a society share common ownership of the means of production and rewards from that production. The resultant society gains and allocates resources according to the quote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”.<ref>Marx K. (1937) Marx:Critique of the Gotha Program. Co-operative Publishing Society of
Line 64: Line 64:
The veil of ignorance favours the selection of ‘the original position’ a point in between self-sufficiency and collectivism, whereby two fundamental principles of justice would be agreed upon.
The veil of ignorance favours the selection of ‘the original position’ a point in between self-sufficiency and collectivism, whereby two fundamental principles of justice would be agreed upon.


1) Equal rights to extensive basic liberties, compatible with a similar liberty for others.
1) Equal rights to extensive basic liberties, compatible with a similar liberty for others.


2) Social and economic inequalities that (a) work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society and (b) attached to positions and offices available to all.<ref name=rawls/>
2) Social and economic inequalities that (a) work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society and (b) attached to positions and offices available to all.<ref name=rawls/>


“They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association.”<ref>Rawls J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Great Britain: J. W. Arrowsmith Ltd. p.11</ref>
“They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association.”<ref>Rawls J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Great Britain: J. W. Arrowsmith Ltd. p.11</ref>
Line 77: Line 77:
===Criticism of Rawls Theory===
===Criticism of Rawls Theory===
Rawls arranged the fundamental principles of the Original Position in lexical priority: the liberty principle, fair equality of opportunity and lastly the difference principle. This prioritisation encounters criticism, as the importance of the first principle is awarded greater weighting and must be satisfied prior to subsequent principles. So whilst liberty is said to be the dominant principle, the difference principle that results from the acceptance of inequalities (the second principle) operates in violation of the first principle.<ref>Davenport J. (1996) A Critique of Rawls's Arguments for the Lexical Priority of Liberties. [online] Available at http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/davenport/texts/priorlib.pdf [accessed 20 April 2012].
Rawls arranged the fundamental principles of the Original Position in lexical priority: the liberty principle, fair equality of opportunity and lastly the difference principle. This prioritisation encounters criticism, as the importance of the first principle is awarded greater weighting and must be satisfied prior to subsequent principles. So whilst liberty is said to be the dominant principle, the difference principle that results from the acceptance of inequalities (the second principle) operates in violation of the first principle.<ref>Davenport J. (1996) A Critique of Rawls's Arguments for the Lexical Priority of Liberties. [online] Available at http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/davenport/texts/priorlib.pdf [accessed 20 April 2012].
</ref> This is exemplified by redistributive taxes as discussed by [[Robert Nozick]] in [[Anarchy, State and Utopia]] which criticises the use of this tax as a levelling mechanism, impinging upon an individual’s basic liberties, the mainstay of the original position's principles.
</ref> This is exemplified by redistributive taxes as discussed by [[Robert Nozick]] in [[Anarchy, State and Utopia]] which criticises the use of this tax as a levelling mechanism, impinging upon an individual’s basic liberties, the mainstay of the original position's principles.


Three objections to the difference principle are identified by [[Michael Sandel]] as follows:
Three objections to the difference principle are identified by [[Michael Sandel]] as follows:
Line 91: Line 91:


==Inequality of Wealth==
==Inequality of Wealth==
The inequality of wealth distribution in the United States was the precursor to the [[Occupy Wall Street Movement]] that spread to up to 80 countries.<ref>Adbusters [online] Available at http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet [accessed 20 April 2012]</ref> The protest’s slogan “We are the 99%” aimed to draw attention to the financial power held by a minority. This power is perpetuated by the supposedly corrupt nature of large corporations said to hold overwhelming financial and political control.
The inequality of wealth distribution in the United States was the precursor to the [[Occupy Wall Street Movement]] that spread to up to 80 countries.<ref>Adbusters [online] Available at http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet [accessed 20 April 2012]</ref> The protest’s slogan “We are the 99%” aimed to draw attention to the financial power held by a minority. This power is perpetuated by the supposedly corrupt nature of large corporations said to hold overwhelming financial and political control.


A [[poverty trap]], acts as a self-reinforcing mechanism which causes poverty to persist.<ref>Poverty Trap [online] Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_trap [accessed 20 April 2012]</ref> This vicious cycle of poverty remains a common experience of billions and the emergence of these traps can arise from both market failure and institution failure.<ref>Azariadis C. & Stachurski J. (2005). Poverty Traps. In Aghion P. and Durlauf S. The Handbook of Economic Growth Volume 1A. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier.</ref> On the opposite side to poverty traps are [[welfare trap]]s, or an over-reliance upon welfare, that creates a perverse incentive to work.
A [[poverty trap]], acts as a self-reinforcing mechanism which causes poverty to persist. This vicious cycle of poverty remains a common experience of billions and the emergence of these traps can arise from both market failure and institution failure.<ref>Azariadis C. & Stachurski J. (2005). Poverty Traps. In Aghion P. and Durlauf S. The Handbook of Economic Growth Volume 1A. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier.</ref> On the opposite side to poverty traps are [[welfare trap]]s, or an over-reliance upon welfare, that creates a perverse incentive to work.


[[Market failures]] are the inefficient allocation of goods and services, that can occur in a free market economy. These failures often arise in the pursuit of goals of self-interest that lead to inefficient market outcomes such as Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption.<ref name=v/>
[[Market failures]] are the inefficient allocation of goods and services, that can occur in a free market economy. These failures often arise in the pursuit of goals of self-interest that lead to inefficient market outcomes such as Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption.<ref name=v/>

Revision as of 17:12, 22 February 2014

Justice and the market is an ethical perspective based upon the allocation of scarce resources within a society. The allocation of resources depends upon governmental policies and the societal attitudes of the individuals who exist within the society. Personal perspectives are based upon ones circle of moral concern or those who the individual deems worthy of moral consideration.[1]

Philosophers, economists and politicians have sought to answer the question of which members of society deserve material rewards and how to decide what deserving is based upon. Perspectives of distributive justice vary from collectivism to extreme self-sufficiency; these perspectives vary between the importance of the group or individual respectively. Positions on distributive justice incorporate moral and political philosophies to form the extremes[2] of communism (left wing) and libertarianism (right-wing) that exist on a continuum scale.

20th century philosopher John Rawls attempted to create a thought experiment that would allow for the consideration of a societal design that is best for all involved.[3] Mechanisms of redistribution vary among countries and governmental roles within societies determine the redistributive mechanisms that are used.

Distributive Justice

Main article: Distributive justice

Distributive justice relates to the principle of fairness in the allocation of wealth, income, power and opportunities.[4] Many theoretical paradigms have been developed to approach distributive justice such as Adam Smith’s invisible hand, Karl Marx’s Socialist view of Communism and John Rawls Original position on Inequality.

Libertarianism

Main article: Libertarianism

The Libertarian philosophy refers to freedom, and particularly individual liberty which dictates the right and ability to govern one's self.[5] In an economic sense the libertarian view assumes a free market, left to its own accord, is a fair market and that redistributive taxation is unjust.[6] Many libertarian schools of thought exist with differing views on many principles, such as the role of government in the market place.

Capitalist Society

Main article: Capitalism

Adam Smith's idea of the invisible hand was a founding contribution to explain resource allocation within a society. The invisible hand metaphor portrayed an aggregated market created by the self-interest of those involved, and grounded in the notion that through fulfillment of one's own aspirations, society would benefit.[7][8] This idea formed the foundation of laissez-faire economic philosophy and subsequent neoclassical economics, where Milton Friedman’s ideas about economic systems lay. The free market originated from the concept of the invisible hand, and eventuates in a meritocratic society with resources allocated on the basis of merit. Modern representations of this exemplify perfect free market capitalism.

Criticism of capitalism

The invisible hand approach, or pure free market capitalism, assumes that a competitive market allocates resources in an appropriate manner, however Stephen LeRoy highlighted the debate that ensued following the recent financial crisis upon whether this assumption holds true for modern economies.[9] Thorstein Veblen in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899)[10] showed that the wealthy conspicuously consumed their riches to display their success to others. This calls attention to the inefficiencies of the capitalist system. Galbraith’s prolific writings centered around the market power of large corporations. He posits that the rise in the power of corporations and their associated advertising, dictates that classical economic theory is ineffectual, and new economic theory should be developed.[11] Critics of Galbraith objected to the fact that the focus of his writings were the people as opposed to academics, and thus imply that his answers to economic problems are too simplistic.[12] Social inequality and unfair distribution of wealth, are often attributed to capitalism [13] and a pure free market is built upon a principle of rewarding effort. However, this ignores persons born with greater natural abilities or greater opportunities.[4] Thus, successive iterations of pure free market capitalism would lead to a market based upon feudal aristocracy.

Price controls are a government initiative to mitigate exploitative market power. Specifically in response to systems of pricing that capitalise on the dependency of one market entity upon another, such as monopolistic markets in which the supplier is a price maker and consumers assume the role of price taker. Price controls as a strategy provide relief from the price exploitation of the dominant player in a market transaction, albeit a short term abatement of this power which is a common criticism of this method.

Communist Society

Main article: Communism

Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto postulated that the era of feudal aristocracy and the capitalism experienced in 1847 at the time of its writing, would be replaced with communism, or as we now know it, a socialist society.[14] Communists from a Marxian perspective are described as persons that understand the world and are enlightened to the interests of the proletariat. Marx surmised that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” [15] refers to rule by the working class and would see the battle of democracy as won.

In this scenario members of a society share common ownership of the means of production and rewards from that production. The resultant society gains and allocates resources according to the quote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”.[16] The communist approach eliminates scarcity in all respects, and represents a society from a pure collectivism school of thought, based upon the utilitarian moral perspective.

The impact of Marxist theories continues to this day, Alan Taylor [17] compares The Communist Manifesto to a holy script, being acted upon and quoted by supporters that do not know the source of their belief.

Criticisms of the Communist Society

Utilitarianism

Main article: Utilitarianism

A Communist society utilises a utilitarian based moral approach as a means to preserve the society. In this system the rights of the collective are placed above the rights of individuals. The utilitarian paradigm represents “the greatest happiness principle” as theorized by John Stuart Mill.[18] This theory holds that the best course of action is that which benefits the majority, and may require the sacrifice of some to maximise happiness overall.

Motivation

Within a Communist Society the sole purpose of production is in maintaining the subsistence of the collective. Lack of self-interest mitigates the exertion of additional effort by individuals’ because reward is not allocated proportionate to effort or in a meritocratic manner. Introduction of a rewards system (be it economic or otherwise) breaches the basis of the communist society, because reward places value on individual achievement. However difficulty lies in maintaining optimal resource levels in this society, because production occurs on the basis of need only.

Meritocracy

Main article: Meritocracy

Meritocracy is an ideology founded in the works of Confucius, whereby the allocation of rewards, positions and responsibilities is objective and upon the merit of an individual. Merit is predominantly assessed via examinations and evaluations,[19] however a perfect meritocracy is near impossible to achieve. The attainment of a university degree is purportedly an example of a meritocratic system, however the inability to ensure equal opportunity to access university by all refutes this point. Inequalities exist in access to prior education, socio-economic factors and as Rawls argues natural abilities and talents. Criticism of meritocracy comes from the reproduction of traditional hierarchies and inequality, when merit is not awarded in a meritocratic manner but instead on the basis of opportunity.[20] Distribution based upon the arbitrary nature of desert faces criticism from egalitarianism, that dictates justice without equality is futile and that equality in itself is the highest form of justice.

The Original Position

Main article: Original position

John Rawls conceived the notion of ‘The Original Position’ based upon the thought experiment whereby participants must agree to a hypothetical social contract under a veil of ignorance. In this approach to the question of societal design, removal of the knowledge of particular abilities, tastes and position within society creates a veil of ignorance. The application of this veil in the thought experiment determines the basic structure of society subjectively, because knowledge of the outcome and participant’s subsequent position in the society is deprived. From this naive perspective, an evaluation of resource allocation can be made from a morally arbitrary point of view. The veil of ignorance favours the selection of ‘the original position’ a point in between self-sufficiency and collectivism, whereby two fundamental principles of justice would be agreed upon.

1) Equal rights to extensive basic liberties, compatible with a similar liberty for others.

2) Social and economic inequalities that (a) work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society and (b) attached to positions and offices available to all.[3]

“They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association.”[21]

The Difference Principle

Main article: Difference principle

Rawls’ conclusion to the regulation of inequality, was a society based upon his proposed ‘difference principle’ - permitting inequalities that work to the advantage of the worst off. Not to be confused with trickle-down economics, this compensates for the natural abilities of individuals through a redistributive exercise. The society that results is therefore fair on the basis of opportunity regardless of natural ability.

Criticism of Rawls Theory

Rawls arranged the fundamental principles of the Original Position in lexical priority: the liberty principle, fair equality of opportunity and lastly the difference principle. This prioritisation encounters criticism, as the importance of the first principle is awarded greater weighting and must be satisfied prior to subsequent principles. So whilst liberty is said to be the dominant principle, the difference principle that results from the acceptance of inequalities (the second principle) operates in violation of the first principle.[22] This is exemplified by redistributive taxes as discussed by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia which criticises the use of this tax as a levelling mechanism, impinging upon an individual’s basic liberties, the mainstay of the original position's principles.

Three objections to the difference principle are identified by Michael Sandel as follows: 1. A decreased incentive to work when top tier earners are taxed proportionately greater than lower tier earners. Reaching an equilibrium point demonstrates the difference principle. At equilibrium, top tier earners are provided with enough incentive so to remain in their positions of employment and thus continue to produce benefits also received by bottom tier earners. 2. A Meritocratic allocation of reward. 3. Self-Ownership of one’s natural talents and abilities, violated by redistributive practises that treat these natural assets as public or communal.[23]

Redistributive mechanisms

Main article: Redistribution of wealth

Redistribution of wealth is attained through many forms such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare and nationalisation of private enterprise. Taxation as a means to redistribute wealth seeks to establish a level playing field for its constituents. Sweden has one of the highest income tax rates in the world, which translates to a high level of social welfare in the areas of education, healthcare and pensions.[24] This is a mostly utalitarian form of society and results in a low gini coefficient, a measure of equality of income 0.25.[25] The United States of America has a relatively high gini coefficient opposed to Sweden of 0.41.[25] As such the USA faces a problematic history in public sector services. Accessibility issues exist in healthcare and education in particular. Private sector ownership of these services advantage those that can afford it and for those that cannot, inequality is exacerbated further.

Inequality of Wealth

The inequality of wealth distribution in the United States was the precursor to the Occupy Wall Street Movement that spread to up to 80 countries.[26] The protest’s slogan “We are the 99%” aimed to draw attention to the financial power held by a minority. This power is perpetuated by the supposedly corrupt nature of large corporations said to hold overwhelming financial and political control.

A poverty trap, acts as a self-reinforcing mechanism which causes poverty to persist. This vicious cycle of poverty remains a common experience of billions and the emergence of these traps can arise from both market failure and institution failure.[27] On the opposite side to poverty traps are welfare traps, or an over-reliance upon welfare, that creates a perverse incentive to work.

Market failures are the inefficient allocation of goods and services, that can occur in a free market economy. These failures often arise in the pursuit of goals of self-interest that lead to inefficient market outcomes such as Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption.[10]

References

  1. ^ Laham. s.(2009). Expanding the Moral Circle: Inclusion and Exclusion Mindsets and the Circle of Moral Regard. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1). Pg. 250–253
  2. ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of philosphy. [online] Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/ [accessed 21 May 2012]
  3. ^ a b Rawls J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Great Britain: J. W. Arrowsmith Ltd.
  4. ^ a b Sandel, M. J. (2009) Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
  5. ^ Three Theories of Justice. [online] Available at http://lilt.ilstu.edu/pefranc/3-ts%20of%20justice.htm [accessed 22 April 2012]
  6. ^ Libertarian vs. Utilitarian Justice. [online] Available at http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/06/libertarian-vs-utilitarian-justice.html [accessed 21 April 2012].
  7. ^ Smith, A. (Ed.). (1976). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  8. ^ Smith, A. (Ed.). (2007). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Peterfield, Hampshire: Harriman House.
  9. ^ Stephen LeRoy, Is the Invisible Hand Still Relevant. [online] Available at http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-14.html [accessed 16 April 2012].
  10. ^ a b Veblen. T. (Ed.). (2007). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
  11. ^ Galbraith, J. K. (1998). The Affluent Society (40th Anniversary ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  12. ^ Krugman, P. (1994). Peddling prosperity: Economic sense and nonsense in an age of diminished expectations. New York: W. W. Norton Inc.
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference capitalism was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ Marx K. & Engels F. (Ed.). (2008) The Communist Manifesto London:Pluto Press.
  15. ^ Marx K. (2000) The class struggles in France. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
  16. ^ Marx K. (1937) Marx:Critique of the Gotha Program. Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the USSR: Moscow, p. 14
  17. ^ Taylor A. (1967) Introduction in The Communist Manifesto. London, England: Penguin Books.
  18. ^ Mills. J. S. (Ed.). (1979). Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hacket Pub. Co.
  19. ^ Levinson, D. and Sadovnik, l. R. (2002). Education and sociology: an encyclopedia. New York: Taylor & Francis
  20. ^ Kidder, C. W. (2000). The Rise of the Testocracy: An Essay on the LSAT, Conventional Wisdom and the Dismantling of Diversity. Texas Journal of Women and the Law. 9(2). pp. 167 - 250.
  21. ^ Rawls J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Great Britain: J. W. Arrowsmith Ltd. p.11
  22. ^ Davenport J. (1996) A Critique of Rawls's Arguments for the Lexical Priority of Liberties. [online] Available at http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/davenport/texts/priorlib.pdf [accessed 20 April 2012].
  23. ^ Sandel M. J. (2009) Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 08: "WHATS A FAIR START?" [online] Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL66zx_6No. [accessed 5 April 2012].
  24. ^ Fouché G. (2008)[online] Where tax goes up to 60 per cent, and everybody's happy paying it Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/nov/16/sweden-tax-burden-welfare [accessed 21 April 2012]
  25. ^ a b List of countries by income equality [online] Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Gini_coefficiency [accessed 15 April 2012]
  26. ^ Adbusters [online] Available at http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/occupywallstreet [accessed 20 April 2012]
  27. ^ Azariadis C. & Stachurski J. (2005). Poverty Traps. In Aghion P. and Durlauf S. The Handbook of Economic Growth Volume 1A. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justice_and_the_Market&oldid=596654009"