Advertisement

Comment: The market's distributive justice

By SAM VAKNIN, UPI Senior Business Correspondent

SKOPJE, Macedonia, Aug. 14 (UPI) -- The public outcry against executive pay and compensation has followed disclosures of insider trading, double dealing and outright fraud. But even honest and productive entrepreneurs often earn more money in one year than Albert Einstein did in his entire life.

This strikes many -- especially academics -- as unfair. Surely Einstein's contributions to human knowledge and welfare far exceed anything ever accomplished by sundry businessmen?

Advertisement

Fortunately, this discrepancy is cause for constructive jealousy, emulation and imitation. It can, however, lead to an orgy of destructive and self-ruinous envy.

Entrepreneurs recombine natural and human resources in novel ways. They do so to respond to forecasts of future needs, or to observations of failures and shortcomings of current products or services.

Entrepreneurs are professional -- though usually intuitive -- futurologists. This is a valuable service and it is financed by systematic risk takers, such as venture capitalists. Surely they all deserve compensation for their efforts and the hazards they assume?

Advertisement

Exclusive ownership is the most ancient type of such remuneration. First movers, entrepreneurs, risk takers, owners of the wealth they generated, exploiters of resources -- all are allowed to exclude others from owning or exploiting the same things.

Mineral concessions, patents, copyright, trademarks -- are all forms of monopoly ownership. What moral right to exclude others is gained from being the first?

Robert Nozick advanced Locke's Proviso. An exclusive ownership of property is just only if "enough and as good is left in common for others."

If it does not worsen other people's lot, exclusivity is morally permissible. It can be argued, though, that all modes of exclusive ownership aggravate other people's situation. As far as everyone, bar the entrepreneur, are concerned, exclusivity also prevents a more advantageous distribution of income and wealth.

Exclusive ownership reflects real-life irreversibility. A first mover has the advantage of excess information and of irreversibly invested work, time and effort.

Economic enterprise is subject to information asymmetry: we know nothing about the future and everything about the past. This asymmetry is known as "investment risk." Society compensates the entrepreneur with one type of asymmetry -- exclusive ownership -- for assuming another, the investment risk.

Advertisement

One way of looking at it is that all others are worse off by the amount of profits and rents accruing to owner-entrepreneurs. Profits and rents reflect an intrinsic inefficiency. Another is to recall that ownership is the result of adding value to the world. It is only reasonable to expect it to yield to the entrepreneur at least this value-added, now and in the future.

In a "Theory of Justice" (1971), John Rawls described an ideal society thus:

"(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

"(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity."

It all harks back to scarcity of resources -- land, money, raw materials, manpower, creative brains. Those who can afford to do so, hoard resources to offset anxiety regarding future uncertainty. Others wallow in paucity. The distribution of means is thus skewed.

"Distributive justice" deals with the just allocation of scarce resources.

Advertisement

Yet, even the basic terminology is somewhat fuzzy. What constitutes a resource? What is meant by allocation? Who should allocate resources -- Adam Smith's "invisible hand," the government, the consumer, or business?

Should it reflect differences in power, in intelligence, in knowledge, or in heredity? Should resource allocation be subject to a principle of entitlement? Is it reasonable to demand that it be just -- or merely efficient? Are justice and efficiency antonyms?

Justice is concerned with equal access to opportunities. Equal access does not guarantee equal outcomes, invariably determined by idiosyncrasies and differences among people. Access leveraged by the application of natural or acquired capacities translates into accrued wealth. Disparities in these capacities lead to discrepancies in accrued wealth.

The doctrine of equal access is founded on the equivalence of men. That all men are created equal and deserve the same respect and, therefore, equal treatment is not self-evident. European aristocracy well into the 20th century would have probably found this notion abhorrent.

Jose Ortega Y Gasset, writing in the 1930s, preached that access to educational and economic opportunities should be premised on one's lineage, upbringing, wealth and social responsibilities.

A succession of societies and cultures discriminated against the ignorant, criminals, atheists, females, homosexuals, members of ethnic, religious, or racial groups, the old, the immigrant, and the poor.

Advertisement

Communism -- ostensibly a strict egalitarian idea -- foundered because it failed to reconcile strict equality with economic and psychological realities within an impatient timetable.

Philosophers tried to specify a "bundle" or "package" of goods, services and intangibles (like information, skills or knowledge).

Justice -- though not necessarily happiness -- is when everyone possesses an identical bundle.

Happiness -- though not necessarily justice -- is when each one of us possesses a "bundle" that reflects his or her preferences, priorities and predilections.

None of us will be too happy with a standardized bundle, selected by a committee of philosophers -- or bureaucrats, as was the case under communism.

The market allows for the exchange of goods and services between holders of identical bundles. If I seek books, but detest oranges, I can swap them with someone in return for his books. That way both of us are rendered better off than under the strict egalitarian version.

Still, there is no guarantee that I will find my exact match -- a person who is interested in swapping his books for my oranges. Illiquid, small, or imperfect markets thus inhibit the scope of these exchanges. Additionally, exchange participants have to agree on an index: how many books for how many oranges? This is the price of oranges in terms of books.

Advertisement

Money -- the obvious "index" -- does not solve this problem; it merely simplifies it and facilitates exchanges. It does not eliminate the necessity to negotiate an "exchange rate."

It does not prevent market failures. In other words: money is not an index. It is merely a medium of exchange and a store of value. The index -- as expressed in terms of money -- is the underlying agreement regarding the values of resources in terms of other resources, in other words, their relative values.

The market and the price mechanism increase happiness and welfare by allowing people to alter the composition of their bundles. The invisible hand is just and benevolent. But money is imperfect. The aforementioned Rawls demonstrated that we need to combine money with other measures in order to place a value on intangibles.

The prevailing market theories postulate that everyone has the same resources at some initial point (the "starting gate"). It is up to them to deploy these endowments and, thus, to ravage or increase their wealth. While the initial distribution is equal, the end distribution depends on how wisely -- or imprudently -- the initial distribution was used.

Egalitarian thinkers proposed to equate everyone's income in each time frame, such as annually. But identical incomes do not automatically yield the same accrued wealth. The latter depends on how the income is used -- saved, invested or squandered. Relative disparities of wealth are bound to emerge, regardless of the nature of income distribution.

Advertisement

Some say that excess wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. Progressive taxation and the welfare state aim to secure this outcome. Redistributive mechanisms reset the "wealth clock" periodically (at the end of every month or fiscal year).

In many countries, the law dictates which portion of one's income must be saved and, by implication, how much can be consumed. This conflicts with basic rights like the freedom to make economic choices.

The legalized expropriation of income, such as through taxes, is morally dubious. Anti-tax movements have sprung up all over the world and their philosophy permeates the ideology of political parties in many countries, not least the United States.

Taxes are punitive: they penalize enterprise, success, entrepreneurship, foresight and risk assumption. Welfare, on the other hand, rewards dependence and parasitism.

According to Rawls' Difference Principle, all tenets of justice are either redistributive or retributive. This ignores non-economic activities and human inherent variance.

Moreover, conflict and inequality are the engines of growth and innovation -- which mostly benefit the least-advantaged in the long run. Experience shows that unmitigated equality results in atrophy, corruption and stagnation. Thermodynamics teaches us that life and motion are engendered by an irregular distribution of energy. Entropy -- an even distribution of energy -- equals death and stasis.

Advertisement

What about the disadvantaged and challenged: the mentally retarded, the mentally insane, the paralyzed, the chronically ill? For that matter, what about the less talented, less skilled, less daring?

Gerald Dworkin (1981) proposed a compensation scheme. He suggested a model of fair distribution in which every person is given the same purchasing power and uses it to bid, in a fair auction, for resources that best fit that person's life plan, goals and preferences.

Having thus acquired these resources, we are then permitted to use them as we see fit. Obviously, we end up with disparate economic results. But we cannot complain -- we were given the same purchasing power and the freedom to bid for a bundle of our choice.

Dworkin assumes that prior to the hypothetical auction, people are unaware of their own natural endowments but are willing and able to insure against being naturally disadvantaged. Their payments create an insurance pool to compensate the less fortunate for their misfortune.

This, of course, is highly unrealistic. We are usually very much aware of natural endowments and liabilities -- both ours and those of other people. Therefore, the demand for such insurance is not universal, nor uniform.

Advertisement

Some of us badly need and want it -- others not at all. It is morally acceptable to let willing buyers and sellers to trade in such coverage, as by offering charity or alms -- but may be immoral to make it compulsory.

Most of the modern welfare programs are involuntary Dworkin schemes. Worse yet, they often measure differences in natural endowments arbitrarily, compensate for lack of acquired skills and discriminate among types of endowments in accordance with cultural biases and fads.

Libertarians limit themselves to ensuring a level playing field of just exchanges, where just actions always result in just outcomes. Justice is not dependent on a particular distribution pattern, whether as a starting point or as an outcome. Nozick's "Entitlement Theory" proposed in 1974 is based on this approach.

That the market is wiser than any of its participants is a pillar of the philosophy of capitalism. In its pure form, the theory claims that markets yield patterns of merited distribution -- that is, reward and punish justly.

Capitalism generates just deserts. Market failures -- for instance, in the provision of public goods -- should be tackled by governments. But a just distribution of income and wealth does not constitute a market failure and, therefore, should not be tampered with.

Advertisement


Send your comments to: [email protected]

Latest Headlines

Advertisement

Trending Stories

Advertisement

Follow Us

Advertisement