IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v45y2021i1p195-208..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impossibility of a Rawlsian liberal

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Judge

Abstract

This article critically examines the role of the neoclassical model of the market within Rawlsian liberalism. Although Rawls claims agnosticism towards particular economic theories, I show how the neoclassical model anchors Rawls’s approach of transmuting distributive efficiency into distributive justice. However, the assumptions underlying the neoclassical model are not descriptively accurate as Rawls’s key construct of pure procedural justice requires. Without the neoclassical model and the pure procedural approach to distribution it uniquely enables, Rawlsian liberalism recreates the very problem of pluralism it is premised on resolving. This article surfaces this paradox for Rawlsian liberalism: it relies essentially on market distribution yet cannot justify these arrangements within the confines of the theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Judge, 2021. "The impossibility of a Rawlsian liberal," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 45(1), pages 195-208.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:45:y:2021:i:1:p:195-208.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beaa031
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:cambje:v:45:y:2021:i:1:p:195-208.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.