Recasting Egalitarianism

In a major work on economic and social policy, two prominent economists lead a debate to redistribute wealth. The book lays out the underlying logic of this proposal in detail, followed by responses by both critics and supporters.

Pragmatist Egalitarianism argues that a deep impasse plagues philosophical egalitarianism, and sets forth a novel conception of equality rooted in American pragmatist thought that successfully mediates it. There is a division within egalitarianism between those who regard equality as a fundamentally distributive ideal and those who construe it as a normative conception of human relationships. Despite their close connection, these different ideals may come apart. And yet, so much philosophical writing on equality is marked by what looks like a zero-sum competition for the same conceptual turf, as if the whole truth about equality must be captured by a single idea or an exclusive set of principles. One of the core arguments in Pragmatist Egalitarianism is that we should reject the central premises upon which such disagreement turns: that equality is a single idea, that it has a fundamental locus, and that there is a singular or primary route to the achievement of a genuinely egalitarian society. David Rondel argues for a recasting of egalitarianism in light of three mutually reinforcing variables--the Institutional, the Personal, and the Cultural--each of which is best accentuated in one of a trio of pragmatists. If the three variables are mutually complicit in promoting inequality, an egalitarianism that takes this seriously will treat all three as equally (albeit differently) important in making things better. Infused with the thought of leading American pragmatists, including William James, John Dewey, and Richard Rorty, Pragmatist Egalitarianism puts pragmatist philosophy to work in new and profoundly illuminating ways.

First Published in 2001. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

The Egalitarian Conscience pays tribute to the highly influential work of Professor G. A. Cohen. Professor Cohen is a philosopher of international stature and tremendous achievement, who has been vital to the flourishing of egalitarian political philosophy. He has a significant body of work spanning issues of Marxism and distributive justice, consistently characterized by original ideas and ingenious arguments. The high standard of rigour he sets for progressive thinkers,particularly himself, has been a source of inspiration for colleagues and students alike.The volume honours Professor Cohen with first-rate essays on a number of significant and fascinating topics, reflecting the wide-ranging themes of Professor Cohen's work, but united in their concern for questions of social justice, pluralism, equality, and moral duty. The contributors are scholars of international stature: Joshua Cohen, Jon Elster, Susan Hurley, Will Kymlicka, Derek Parfit, John Roemer, T. M. Scanlon, Samuel Scheffler, Hillel Steiner, and Jeremy Waldron. There is an afterwordby G. A. Cohen.

In this systematic and scathing attack on the dominant contemporary version of liberalism, John Kekes challenges political assumptions shared by the majority of people in Western societies. Egalitarianism, as it's widely known, holds that a government ought to treat all citizens with equal consideration. Kekes charges that belief in egalitarianism rests on illusions that prevent people from facing unpleasant truths.Kekes, a major voice in modern political thought, argues that differences among human beings in the areas of morality, reasonability, legality, and citizenship are too important for governance to ignore. In a rigorous criticism of prominent egalitarian thinkers, including Dworkin, Nagel, Nussbaum, Rawls, Raz, and Singer, Kekes charges that their views present a serious threat to both morality and reason. For Kekes, certain "inegalitarian truths" are obvious: people should get what they deserve, those who are good and those who are evil should not be treated as if they had the same moral worth, people should not be denied what they have earned in order to benefit those who have not earned it, and individuals should be held responsible for their actions. His provocative book will compel many readers to question their faith in liberalism.

Through an analysis of the different dimensions of equality, this book provides a critical introduction to recent philosophical work on egalitarianism, discussing the central questions associated with each of the major debates about egalitarian justice.

This book provides an interesting and refreshing collection of economic research conducted in the broadly heterodox tradition. A variety of topical issues are addressed, including labor market inequalities, welfare reform, interest rate policies, international trade, and global financial instability. What unites these diverse essays is their common perspective that social institutions and structures "matter" to the performance of economies, and hence should receive more attention from economists. Conventional economic thought focuses unduly on the functioning of so-called "free-markets." The persistent influence of social structures, institutions and practices - and the unequal extent to which differing social constituencies are able to exert power through those structures - often receives short shrift in this traditional research. However, this volume makes a significant contribution by helping to reverse this trend. The chapters, all written by top economists from around North America, address a range of topical issues, utilizing a rich variety of methodological techniques from empirical investigations to game theory and opinion surveys. Furthermore, the book, which is dedicated to the memory of David M. Gordon, has as its unifying theme the incorporation of structural analysis into economic science - an important goal for academics and students alike.

Can the need for incentives justify inequality? Starting from this question, Frank Vandenbroucke examines a conception of justice in which both equality and responsibility are involved. In the first part of the inquiry, which explores the implementation of that conception of justice, the justification of incentives assumes that agents make personal choices based only upon their own interests. The second part of the book challenges the idea that a normative conception of distributive justice can be based on that traditional assumption, i.e. that personal choices are not the subject matter of justice. Thus, Vandenbroucke questions the Rawlsian idea that the primary subject of a theory of justice is the basic structure of society, and not the individual conduct of its citizens. For a society to be really just, the ethos of individual conduct has to serve justice. Non-mathematical readers can skip the formal model proposed in Chapter 3 and understand the rest of the book.