IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v31y2015i02p203-217_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Equality Versus Priority: How Relevant Is The Distinction?

Author

Listed:
  • Fleurbaey, Marc

Abstract

This paper questions the distinction between egalitarianism and prioritarianism, arguing that it is important to separate the reasons for particular social preferences from the contents of these preferences, that it is possible to like equality and separability simultaneously, and that some egalitarians and prioritarians may therefore share the same social preferences (though for different reasons). The case of risky prospects, for which Broome has proposed an interesting example meant to show that egalitarians and prioritarians cannot share the same preferences, is scrutinized. The levelling down objection is also examined.

Suggested Citation

  • Fleurbaey, Marc, 2015. "Equality Versus Priority: How Relevant Is The Distinction?," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 203-217, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:31:y:2015:i:02:p:203-217_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267115000085/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joseph Millum, 2023. "Should health research funding be proportional to the burden of disease?," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(1), pages 76-99, February.
    2. Martinet, Vincent & Del Campo, Stellio & Cairns, Robert D., 2022. "Intragenerational inequality aversion and intergenerational equity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue forthcomi.
    3. Anders Herlitz & David Horan, 2016. "Prioritizing the “worse off” under attainability constraints: An indeterminacy problem for distributive fairness," Working Papers 201608, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    4. Geir B. Asheim, 2017. "Sustainable growth," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(3), pages 825-848, December.
    5. Suman Seth & Gaston Yalonetzky, 2021. "Assessing Deprivation with an Ordinal Variable: Theory and Application to Sanitation Deprivation in Bangladesh," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 35(3), pages 793-811.
    6. Daoud, Adel & Herlitz, Anders & Subramanian, S.V., 2022. "IMF fairness: Calibrating the policies of the International Monetary Fund based on distributive justice," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    7. Adel Daoud & Anders Herlitz & SV Subramanian, 2020. "Combining distributive ethics and causal Inference to make trade-offs between austerity and population health," Papers 2007.15550, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    8. Karolina Goraus Tanska & Joanna Tyrowicz & Lucas Augusto van der Velde, 2020. "How rankings disguise gender inequality: A comparative analysis of cross-country gender equality rankings based on adjusted wage gaps," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Suman Seth and Gaston Yalonetzky, 2018. "Assessing Deprivation with Ordinal Variables: Depth Sensitivity and Poverty Aversion," OPHI Working Papers ophiwp123.pdf, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.

    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:cup:ecnphi:v:31:y:2015:i:02:p:203-217_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    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.