IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-03975342.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The "Difference Principle": Economic Rationality and Political Applicability

Author

Listed:
  • Claude Gamel

    (LEST - Laboratoire d'Economie et de Sociologie du Travail - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

On deliberation in the public debate, Rawls' approach known as "justice as fairness" has been much more commented that the "difference principle" emerged from there as a major result: even though based on an equal initial position, "justice as fairness" paradoxically justifies an essential benchmark in the debate on inequalities. Indeed, the "difference principle" compresses many issues: distinguishing between naturel and social matters which both contribute to inequalities, defining a level of permitted inequalities we should have to tolerate not as just but effective ones, preserving market incentives in so far they contribute to value creation, which has later to be redistributed. The paper explores all these questions, that concern the philosophical-economic rationality of the principle and its political-societal applicability as well. In conclusion, its contribution to the debate on inequalities, which is beyond all doubt, seems rather economic than philosophical and is based on a liberal presupposition, which is rarely identified and recognised.

Suggested Citation

  • Claude Gamel, 2022. "The "Difference Principle": Economic Rationality and Political Applicability," Post-Print halshs-03975342, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03975342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Amedeo Spadaro & François Bourguignon, 2003. "Les modèles de microsimulation dans l’analyse des politiques de redistribution : une brève présentation," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 160(4), pages 231-238.
    3. Rawls, John, 1974. "Some Reasons for the Maximin Criterion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 141-146, May.
    4. Harsanyi, John C., 1975. "Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls's Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 594-606, June.
    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. 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.
    2. Lara Buchak, 2023. "Philosophical foundations for worst-case arguments," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(3), pages 215-242, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Herrade Igersheim, 2022. "Rawls and the Economists: The (Im)possible Dialogue," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 73(6), pages 1013-1037.
    5. 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.
    6. Thijs De Coninck & Frederik Van De Putte, 2023. "Original position arguments and social choice under ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 275-298, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Smeele, Nicholas V.R. & Chorus, Caspar G. & Schermer, Maartje H.N. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2023. "Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Duclos, Jean-Yves, 2006. "Liberté ou égalité?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 82(4), pages 441-476, décembre.
    11. 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.
    12. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    13. 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.
    14. Rosenthal, Howard & Zame, William R., 2022. "Sequential referenda with sophisticated voters," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    15. Roger Stanev, 2016. "Quantitative Framework for Retrospective Assessment of Interim Decisions in Clinical Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(8), pages 999-1010, November.
    16. Marco Faravelli, 2005. "Looking for Agreement: an Experiment on Distributive Justice," Working Papers 92, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Oct 2005.
    17. Nick Hanley & Louis Dupuy & Eoin McLaughlin, 2015. "Genuine Savings And Sustainability," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 779-806, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Johannes Brinkmann, 2013. "Combining Risk and Responsibility Perspectives: First Steps," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(4), pages 567-583, February.
    20. 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.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-03975342. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.