Public Policy and Social Vulnerable Groups

In the Asia-Pacific Region and elsewhere economic rationalists are sometimes criticized for not being concerned about how their policies affect the distribution of income between the various quintile groups of the population. Nevile (1997, p. 5), for instance, indicates that whilst some economic rationalists argue that disparities in income create incentives, most say little about income distribution at all (Nevile, 1998; Nevile and Warren, 1984). Some of those who do speak about it often do so in the context of criticizing wealth distribution through the taxation system. They support Moore’s (2000) claim that income distribution policies proposed by interventionists would be “a sure recipe for a revolution”. Moore also claims that economic rationalists have concerns about the adverse effects of such a redistributive process (p. 7). Egalitarianism is a social justice issue that requires further research. Researchers in this area include Rawls (1971, 1972) who concedes that although inequalities exist, arguments justifying extreme inequalities on the grounds of rewarding people for their personal effort should be dismissed. To Rawls (1972, p. 62), rewards, embodied in such qualities as social standing, race, gender, intellectual and physical ability, that are obtained through accident of birth, cannot be justified unless such an inherited endowment “directly contributes to the welfare of others” (Roemer, 1996). Although such distributive justice follows concepts of justice advocated by Homans (1961), other social scientists, such as Gouldner (1960, p. 164), describe a more ascriptive form of justice and equality. Such standardized forms of pursuing equality (Sabine, 1956) provide a uniform distribution of income regardless of eligible recipients’ needs and economic achievements. In this process, Clignet (1995, p. 283) claims there is a shift from a stewardship ethic of efficiency to a distributive ethic in which the attainment of wealth, power and prestige is dependent upon the acceptance of responsibilities (Simmons, 2008). In non-Western countries where society un-ashamedly divides itself into definable classes, forms of ascriptive justice may be acceptable even if it tolerates immoral practices, such as corruption and bribery, and this, as Zuzowski (2005) claims, breeds poverty.

 

References

Nevile, J.W. (1980), “Economic activity and fiscal policy in Australia: a survey and critique”, The Economic Record, Vol. 56 No.155, pp.301-15.

Nevile, J.W. (1993), “Economic rationalism: on throwing out the bathwater, but saving the baby, the 1993 Giblin lecture”, ANZAAS Conference, Perth, WA, New College Institute for Values Research, The University of NSW, Sydney, Working Paper No. 3, .

Nevile, J.W. (1997), “Economic rationalism: social philosophy masquerading as economic science”, The Australia Institute, Lyneham,

Nevile, J.W. (1998), “Economic rationalism: social philosophy masquerading as economic science”, in Smyth, P., Cass, B. (Eds),Contesting the Australian Way, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp.169-79.

Rawls, J.M. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, .

Rawls, J.M. (1972), A Theory of Justice, Clarendon Press, Oxford, .

Roemer, J.E. (1996), Theories of Distributive Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, .

Sabine, G.H. (1956), “Justice and equality”, Ethics, Vol. 67 pp.1-11.

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com