IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v5y2019i1d10.1057_s41599-019-0270-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What principle of difference for a truly egalitarian social democracy? Rereading Rawls after social democracy’s failures

Author

Listed:
  • André Barata

    (University of Beira Interior)

  • Maria João Cabrita

    (University of Beira Interior)

Abstract

Social democracy based on welfare and the redistribution of social contributions is failing. The accumulation of wealth and the increase in inequalities are the two faces of Janus that social democracy has not been able to contain over the recent decades. In this context, it matters to discuss John Rawls’s influential difference principle. According to the maximin criterion put forth by Rawls, it does not suffice that no one becomes worse off; those who are worse off must also become better off than they are. Here, we note that the existence and growth of inequality find no opposition in the maximin rule. Despite appearances, strictly speaking it merely introduces a factor of social compensation, a sort of “assistencialism” to the victims of the greatest inequality. Even the most robust formulation of the principle of difference, according to which the greatest advantage to the less advantaged is indispensable, does not per se preclude an aggregate growth of inequalities. It seems clear that it was an egalitarian goal what Rawls had in mind in A Theory of Justice. Rawls’s critical comments on welfare capitalism must indeed not be forgotten—especially in his further explanations about the application of the principles of justice in a property-owning democracy. Here, as in liberal socialism, the dispersion of property, capital and resources prevents economic and political powers from being concentrated into the hands of a minority. However, the egalitarian aim does not strictly follow from the difference principle as stated, whether taken literally as an application of the maximin rule or inferring from its strongest formulation. A reformulation that does justice to the egalitarian aim of the principle of difference is, however, possible: namely, a degrowthist reformulation, truly requiring a degrowth in accumulation and inequalities, making explicit a brake clause that hinders the aggregate growth of inequalities. Such a degrowthist conception of the difference principle may justify some concrete rules that are able to enforce the egalitarian commitments of social democracy.

Suggested Citation

  • André Barata & Maria João Cabrita, 2019. "What principle of difference for a truly egalitarian social democracy? Rereading Rawls after social democracy’s failures," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0270-5
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0270-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-019-0270-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-019-0270-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Rawls, 1974. "Reply to Alexander and Musgrave," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 88(4), pages 633-655.
    2. Thomas, Alan, 2017. "Republic of Equals: Predistribution and Property-Owning Democracy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780190602116.
    3. Rawls, John, 1974. "Some Reasons for the Maximin Criterion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 141-146, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philippe Mongin & Marcus Pivato, 2021. "Rawls’s difference principle and maximin rule of allocation: a new analysis," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1499-1525, June.
    2. Claude Gamel, 2022. "The "Difference Principle": Economic Rationality and Political Applicability," Post-Print halshs-03975342, HAL.
    3. Claude Gamel, 2020. "The "difference principle": Economic rationality and political applicability [Le « principe de différence » : rationalité économique et applicabilité politique]," Working Papers halshs-02962781, HAL.
    4. Claude Gamel, 2014. "An Essay on Economics of “liberal Egalitarianism”. A Selective Combination of Rawls’, Sen’s and Kolm’s Works [Essai sur l'Économie de «l'Égalitarisme Libéral». Une Combinaison Sélective des Travaux," Working Papers halshs-01092172, HAL.
    5. Piketty, Thomas & Bozio, Antoine & Garbinti, Bertrand & Goupille-Lebret, Jonathan & Guillot, Malka, 2020. "Predistribution vs. Redistribution: Evidence from France and the U.S," CEPR Discussion Papers 15415, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Duclos, Jean-Yves, 2006. "Liberté ou égalité?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 82(4), pages 441-476, décembre.
    7. Fehr, Ernst & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "The development of egalitarianism, altruism, spite and parochialism in childhood and adolescence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 369-383.
    8. Faravelli, Marco, 2007. "How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1399-1422, August.
    9. Roger Stanev, 2016. "Quantitative Framework for Retrospective Assessment of Interim Decisions in Clinical Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(8), pages 999-1010, November.
    10. Marco Faravelli, 2005. "Looking for Agreement: an Experiment on Distributive Justice," Working Papers 92, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Oct 2005.
    11. Nick Hanley & Louis Dupuy & Eoin McLaughlin, 2015. "Genuine Savings And Sustainability," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 779-806, September.
    12. Lara Buchak, 2023. "Philosophical foundations for worst-case arguments," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(3), pages 215-242, August.
    13. Thibault Gajdos & Feriel Kandil, 2008. "The ignorant observer," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(2), pages 193-232, August.
    14. Johannes Brinkmann, 2013. "Combining Risk and Responsibility Perspectives: First Steps," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(4), pages 567-583, February.
    15. Erika López Pontón, 2008. "Un criterio de eficiencia para la concepción y evaluación de las políticas públicas," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 10(18), pages 149-178, January-J.
    16. Maxime Desmarais-Tremblay, 2017. "Paternalism and the public household. On the domestic origins of public economics," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 17032, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    17. Grzegorz Lissowski & Tadeusz Tyszka & Wlodzimierz Okrasa, 1991. "Principles of Distributive Justice," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 98-119, March.
    18. Antoinette Baujard & Muriel Gilardone, 2013. "Individual judgments and social choice in Sen's idea of justice and democracy," Post-Print halshs-00950320, HAL.
    19. Abatemarco, Antonio, 2016. "Doing rawls justice: Evidence from the PSID," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 10, pages 1-39.
    20. Christian Cordes, 2004. "The Human Adaptation for Culture and its Behavioral Implications," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 143-163, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:5:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-019-0270-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.