Envy and Fair Burden-Sharing: There and Back Again
When should we say that two people are treated as equals from a distributive point of view? The straightforward response is that they are equal if they hold an identical bundle of resources. But since some resources will be indivisible and others too qualitatively different from one another, it is likely that a perfectly identical division of resources would ordinarily be unfeasible. An alternative is to appeal to what has been called the envy test, which is passed if no agent would prefer someone else’s bundle of resources over their own, regardless of what these bundles actually contain. This solution, advanced by Ronald Dworkin [1] as a central component of his theory of justice (commonly known as resource egalitarianism) has been heavily influential in contemporary political theory. Though intended by Dworkin as a purely theoretical device to be employed in assessing distributive inequality, we can identify at least one historical instance where something akin to the envy test was given a decidedly practical application. In this piece I aim to give a brief outline of this case, hoping to show not only that it is in itself an interesting historical example, but also that we can perhaps draw on it in order to reflect on some of our contemporary political concerns.
(more…)
