Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Desert, economics: In economics, "desert" typically refers to the fair claim or entitlement to rewards or outcomes based on individual contributions, efforts, or merits within a system. See also Distributive Justice, Justice, Society, Economy, Labour._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Political Philosophy on Desert - Dictionary of Arguments
Gaus I 227 Desert/Political Philosophy/Lamont: Like resource egalitarians, desert theorists (Pojman and McLeod, 1998)(1) emphasize responsibility and the minimization of the influence of factors over which people have little control. Their primary moral notion is not equality, however, as it is in resource egalitarianism, but the notion of deserving (though desert theories normally require a background of equal opportunity). VsRawls: Desert theorists seek to correct Rawls's failure to appreciate the extent to which individuals are responsible for, and hence deserving of, the fruits of their labour (Miller, 1976;(2) 1989(3); 1999(4); Sher, 1987(5); Sterba, 1980(6)). They argue that the role of luck in determining our success is not significant enough to undermine a legitimate class of claims to deserve greater distributive shares on the basis of greater effort or a more valuable contribution towards the social product (Lamont, 1994(7); McLeod, 1996(8); Miller, 1999(1); Richards, 1986(9); Sher, 1987(5)). Central to the theories is the ideal of people as agents who have the capacity to choose responsibly for themselves. People exercise this capacity to influence others' treatment of them and to act in ways that bring into the world goods and services that others find valuable. >Desert theories/Lamont, >Inequlities/Resource-based view (RBV), >Distributive Justice/Resource-based view (RBV), >Distributive Justice/Libertarianism. 1. Pojman, Louis P. and Owen McLeod, eds (1998) What Do We Deserve? A Reader on Justice and Desert. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2. Miller, David (1976) Social Justice. Oxford: Clarendon. 3. Miller, David (1989) Market, State, and Community. Oxford: Clarendon. 4. Miller, David (1999) Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 5. Sher, George A. (1987) Desert. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 6. Sterba, James (1980) The Demands of Justice. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 7. Lamont, Julian (1994) 'The concept of desert in distributive justice'. Philosophical Quarterly, 44:45—64. 8. McLeod, Owen (1996) 'Desert and wages'. Utilitas, 8: 205-21. 9. Richards, Norvin (1986) 'Luck and desert'. Mind, 95: 198-209. Lamont, Julian, „Distributive Justice“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Political Philosophy Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
||
> Counter arguments against Political Philosophy
> Counter arguments in relation to Desert
