Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
(Desert-Based Justice)
Concept:
Merit is the core principle: individuals should earn based on their efforts and abilities.
Most people believe that some inequalities in income are just because they are earned based on merit (e.g., doctors earning more than others due to their specialized skills).
Fundamental Notion of Fairness:
The reward for effort should be proportional to the contribution made.
People generally believe that salaries should reflect the real abilities and effort of individuals (i.e., you deserve more if you contribute more).
Efficiency Considerations:
Merit-based distribution supports the idea that incentives are necessary to encourage people to invest in education and hard work.
If everyone earned the same income regardless of effort or education, there would be less incentive to pursue lengthy studies or hard work, which would reduce overall societal productivity.
Justice as Desert (Meritocracy)
Popular Attachment to Desert:
Public support for income distribution and social benefits is largely based on the perceived deservingness of individuals.
People support higher earnings for those who have contributed more, and believe that deservedness leads to social stability.
The idea of meritocracy is seen as more stable than systems based solely on need (e.g., utilitarian systems that aim to reduce inequality).
Critiques and Theories of Justice
Meritocracy and Libertarianism:
Libertarianism (e.g., Robert Nozick) and other justice theories argue that individuals should have the freedom to acquire wealth as a reflection of their efforts without excessive interference from the state.
These theories have been developed in opposition to utilitarianism and egalitarian approaches to justice, which prioritize need and equality over desert and merit.
Public Opinion on Benefits:
Social benefits like unemployment support are generally accepted, but only when people believe that recipients deserve the benefits.
People may not oppose unemployment benefits, but they believe benefits should be conditional on deservingness (e.g., not given to those who are perceived as lazy or unproductive).
Distinction between ‘Deserving’ and ‘Undeserving’ Poor
Meritocracy and Justice:
Deserving poor: Those who are hardworking and responsible but may still face hardships.
Undeserving poor: Those who are seen as lacking merit or effort in overcoming poverty.
This distinction is rooted in historical and religious contexts (e.g., church teachings)
Equality of Opportunities vs. inequality of Outcomes
Key Concept:
Equality of opportunities is crucial for meritocracy. Without equal starting opportunities, true meritocracy is impossible.
Inequality of outcomes is acceptable if there is equality of opportunities at the beginning of the process.
Equality of Outcomes:
Only a few argue for full equality of outcomes, as it may reduce incentives to work hard.
Weak Meritocracy
Principles:
No direct discrimination: Meritocracy assumes no bias based on unchangeable characteristics (e.g., race, gender).
Example: Historically, in the Southern US, Afro-Americans were denied the opportunity to become doctors due to racial discrimination, so the income disparities between white and black doctors were not justifiable on a meritocratic basis.
Inequality of Income:
Inequality of Income:
In a weak meritocracy, income inequalities may be justified if there is no direct discrimination but may still reflect inequalities due to external factors (e.g., expensive education or family background).
Limits of Weak Meritocracy:
Weak because inequalities in opportunity are not fully addressed. The system does not address indirect discrimination or external resources that impact initial opportunities.
Strong Meritocracy
Principles:
No direct discrimination + neutralize the impact of family circumstances:
Family circumstances (e.g., wealth, social status, parental education) should not determine an individual’s opportunities or outcomes.
People’s income and success should depend on their choices and efforts, not circumstances they did not choose (e.g., being born into a wealthy or well-educated family).
Meritocracy vs. Aristocracy:
Meritocracy: Rewards based on individual merit and effort.
Aristocracy: Rewards based on family background (e.g., inheritance or social class).
State Intervention:
High taxes on inheritance: To reduce the effect of family wealth on opportunities.
Investment in education: Essential for providing equal opportunities, especially for those born into disadvantaged families. Ensures that people can acquire the necessary skills to succeed in life
Efficiency and Fairness:
The strong version of meritocracy aims to minimize inefficiencies caused by unequal access to resources, as everyone should have a fair chance to succeed based on their abilities and efforts.
Public funding of education: Ideally, funded by inheritance taxes to reduce wealth-based inequalities in opportunities.
Meritocracy and Market Economies
Meritocracy as Justification:
Economists often defend market economies using meritocratic principles, where people are rewarded based on deservedness or contribution to the economy.
Example – Gregory Mankiw (2013):
Defended the 1% (richest people in the USA) using meritocratic values:
People should be compensated based on the contribution they make to the economy (e.g., CEOs like Musk, Bezos).
Criticism: It’s hard to prove that CEOs deserve 400 times the income of typical workers, and their pay is more influenced by circumstances (market conditions, location) than actual individual merit.
Market Effects vs. Deservedness
CEO Pay:
Economic Policy Institute shows CEO pay skyrocketed 1,460% since 1978, while typical workers’ pay has not seen the same growth.
If meritocracy were correct, this would mean CEOs are 400 times more productive than workers.
Criticism:
The market plays a significant role in CEO salaries, with many CEOs being paid more as a symbolic message of their importance.
Location matters: CEO salaries in Europe are lower, suggesting that circumstances (e.g., country, time) greatly influence income.
Success and Luck
Zuckerberg and Bezos Examples:
Mark Zuckerberg acknowledges his luck in getting into Harvard.
Jeff Bezos became wealthier due to COVID-19, not solely by individual effort or merit.
COVID-19 Impact:
Graduates in 2020 face worse job prospects, demonstrating that economic outcomes can be circumstantial rather than based purely on merit or choice
Meritocracy and the Common Good (Michael Sandel)
Sandel's Critique (2020):
In his book The Tyranny of Merit, Sandel argues that American society believes in meritocracy, with the idea that anyone can become president if they work hard enough.
Key Points:
Meritocracy is not the ultimate ideal of a good society.
Equality of opportunity is a corrective principle of justice, not an adequate ideal of a good society.
Sandel agrees with some meritocratic principles but believes that it leads to a rhetoric of humiliation for those who fail to succeed.
Humiliation: The success ethic may stigmatize the poor, creating resentment and political division
The Ethics of Success
Obama’s View:
The American exceptionalism of success, where hard work guarantees achievement, is seen as a moral ideal.
Sandel’s Critique:
This perspective ignores the least-advantaged (the poor) who may lack access to opportunities.
If individuals fail to succeed in a meritocratic system, they are often labeled as failures.
Rhetoric of Humiliation
Resentment and Humiliation:
The rhetoric of success can lead to feelings of resentment among the poor, who may feel humiliated for not achieving success.
Political Impact:
Example: Hillary Clinton referred to Trump supporters as a "basket of deplorables," a remark that fueled political resentment.
Meritocracy Violates Contributive Justice:
Contributive justice emphasizes the collective contribution to society, not just individual merit.
Sandel's Vision:
Society should acknowledge the contributions of people working in difficult or low-paying jobs (e.g., teachers, essential workers)
Alternative to Humiliation: Humility
Spirit of Humility:
Rather than humiliating the poor, society should adopt a humble approach to evaluating success and contribution.
This includes recognizing the circumstantial factors influencing success and considering people’s role in contributing to the common good.
Criticism of Common Goods:
Sandel critiques the idea that drug dealers should earn less than teachers.
Football players and entertainers, though contributing to society’s entertainment, may earn more than essential workers, raising questions about fairness in merit-based systems.
Meritocracy and Open Borders
Equality of Opportunities:
Support for Open Borders:
If equality of opportunities is a core value, then open borders align with meritocratic principles.
Circumstances (like family or country of birth) affect a person's earning capacity and opportunities, and these should not limit someone’s potential.
Example:
Country Circumstances: Born in a rich country, you have an inherent advantage in life (called a citizenship premium), which is often undeserved.
Citizenship Premium and Penalty
Milanovic's View (2016):
Citizenship Premium: Born in a wealthy country, such as the U.S., vastly increases earning capacity compared to someone born in a poorer country like Congo.
Example: A person born in the U.S. could make 93 times more than someone born in Congo.
This difference is largely due to citizenship and not individual merit, which raises questions about fairness.
Citizenship Penalty:
Example: Born in a place like Gaza, where opportunities are limited, represents a citizenship penalty, which is just as unfair as the premium enjoyed by those born in wealthier countries.
The Meritocratic Argument for Migration
Global Mobility as a Remedy:
To address the unfairness of citizenship premiums, we can either transfer money (e.g., foreign aid) or allow more mobility (i.e., open borders).
Allowing open borders could create a more meritocratic society by reducing the impact of unfair initial circumstances tied to nationality.
Privileges and Feudalism
Citizenship as Privilege:
Milanovic and Carens argue that citizenship in wealthy democracies acts as a form of inherited privilege that can enhance life chances, much like feudal class privileges.
Quote by Carens (1987):
"Citizenship in Western democracies is the modern equivalent of feudal class privilege."
Closing Borders and Aristocracy:
Closed borders protect these privileges and inheritances, which perpetuates an aristocratic system rather than a meritocratic one.
People born in wealthier countries enjoy benefits that are unearned (citizenship premium), while those born in poorer countries suffer from the penalty.
Global Equality Argument:
Milanovic argues that the arguments for global equality of opportunity should be consistent across both nation-states and global borders.
The global equality of opportunity means that everyone should have the same chances, regardless of where they were born.
Global vs. National Equality:
The contradiction is that equality of opportunities is often accepted within a nation-state but rejected on a global scale.
Why?:
There is no convincing reason to restrict equality of opportunities just because borders exist between nations.
Milanovic's Conclusion:
He suggests there are no valid arguments to close borders when we believe in equality of opportunity at the nation-state level but deny it globally.
The Impact of Fully Open Borders
Challenge with Open Borders:
If borders were fully open, people from poor countries would flock to wealthy countries, leading to a "brain drain" and detrimentally impacting developing countries.
Example: In Sierra Leone, 75% would leave if given the chance to migrate, but not all countries face the same outflow of migrants.
Reciprocity and Meritocracy
Meritocrats' View on Reciprocity:
For meritocracy to work, there must be reciprocity: people should be able to participate in the economy to enjoy its benefits.
Contributing to a nation's economy is what justifies enjoying its wealth.
History of Social Purposes:
The idea of deserving vs. undeserving poor has been a long-standing social distinction, dating back to the Middle Ages.
The Role of Choice vs. Circumstance
Penalties Are a Result of Choices:
Poor country conditions aren't entirely due to circumstances, but also to choices made historically (e.g., colonialism and exploitation).
Milanovic's Critique:
People in poor countries often work harder than those in wealthier countries, but the pay is much lower due to machine use and migrant labor filling jobs in rich countries.
Wage Disparities:
For the same job (e.g., a construction worker), wages in a wealthy country (London) are 11 times higher than in a poor country (Delhi), even when adjusted for purchasing power.
The "Welfare Magnet" Theory
Borjas (1999) Study:
Immigrants are often attracted to countries with generous social programs, thus acting like "welfare tourists".
His research showed that higher welfare benefits in certain states in the U.S. attract more immigrants.
Borjas' Conclusion:
There is a magnetic effect where migrants choose destinations based on the generosity of social programs.
Criticism of Borjas' Study:
The empirical evidence was weak and did not strongly support his hypothesis.
Later research (de Haas, 2023) shows that most migrants migrate for work, not for welfare benefits.
Counterarguments to the Welfare Magnet
Why Migrants Really Move:
Most migrants move for job opportunities, not to access welfare.
De Haas (2023):
"The vast majority of people migrate to work, study, or join family members, not to live off welfare."
Job Demand Correlation:
There is a strong link between labor demand and immigration.
The Need for Selective Immigration
Temporary Work Permits:
To avoid the magnet effect, some suggest implementing temporary work permits or ensuring that migrants contribute before receiving benefits.
This approach could work for countries outside the EU but is difficult within it due to free movement laws.
Essential Migrant Workers
Sandel's Argument (2020):
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how essential migrant workers are, especially in sectors like agriculture.
De Haas (2023):
Migrants are crucial to sectors like horticulture in the U.S., greenhouse sectors in the Netherlands, and agri-food industries in Southern Spain and Italy.
Political Tensions:
The Trump administration and some Italian politicians faced tensions because migrant workers are crucial to sectors like agriculture, yet anti-immigrant rhetoric continues to grow.
