The call for equality today is in line with the international human rights law, which states that human beings should be treated with equality regardless of their status within society. According to Anselmi et al. (2014), equality refers to the need for individuals with diverse needs to gain access to the same resources while pursuing both vertical and horizontal equality. Acknowledging the relevance of equality in the distribution of resources within society requires the consideration of the supply and demand-side features which include the allocated resources and needs within the society. Distribution of resources should therefore capture the risks and needs of the population, which may also include the socio-economic indicators (McIntyre & Kutzin, 2011). Resource allocation provides insights into equity for the distribution of benefits across society based on need, as it supports the needs of the diverse sections of society. This essay, therefore, argues for the aspiration for an equal distribution of resources across the society.
The first argument for the equal distribution of resources is based on the advancements in closing down the gap between the rich and the poor, i.e. the top and bottom gap (Anselmi et al., 2014). Resource egalitarianism stipulates that providing equal sets of resources and opportunities for using these resources improves the welfare of the whole society. Egalitarianism, therefore, acts by levelling off the resources that the rich within the society have access to as part of elevating the poor to create value. In this case, equalizing resources provides the different categories of individuals in the society, i.e. the top and bottom, a fair opportunity to leave variations in tastes and generate welfare within the society (Moreno-Ternero & Roemer, 2012). The argument presented above is based on the endorsement of egalitarianism by John Rawls, where all humans are treated as equal in terms of moral status and fundamental worth within society. The distribution of resources is associated with maximum egalitarian outcomes in that egalitarian social welfare is an outcome of utility assigned by the allocated resources. Clarifying the properties of the agents in society is required to achieve optimal outcomes from egalitarian resource allocation (Matt & Toni, 2006).
Poverty is acknowledged by international human rights as a possible avenue for discrimination in the allocation of resources (Matt & Toni, 2006). Prohibiting discrimination in resource allocation due to poverty is key to ensuring that minorities, i.e. political minorities, ethnic minorities and people of colour, are not left out in development (Atuguba, 2013). Fair distribution for the benefits of the society’s top and bottom segments is proposed under the egalitarian argument. Despite the adequacy of the egalitarian argument in equal resource distribution, consumers’ choices often result in certain inequalities, which are not captured in this theory of distributive justice. But with access to equal bundles of resources based on need, the people within the society, rich and poor, gain control over how to use them (Matt & Toni, 2006). In this case, choice and tastes become an individual concern, not a distributive justice concern. Egalitarianism also differentiates between disability and expensive tastes when assessing the level of need for resource allocation (Moreno-Ternero & Roemer, 2012). The conception of disability as a resource deprivation inequality allows for properly balancing the distribution to ensure distributive justice.
The second argument for the equal distribution of resources is based on sufficientarianism. Sufficientarianism, just like egalitarianism, supports distributive justice (Shields, 2020). Sufficientarianism advocates for the assessment of the outcomes of decisions made to determine if people have access to a certain good within society (Shields, 2020). The sufficientarianism concept acknowledges the influence of policies, laws, and individual and group actions in affecting the distribution of burdens and benefits within the society in that some people are worse off while others are better off due to these decisions and actions. Based on these arguments, equality in the distribution of resources provides an opportunity for individuals to access enough goods and resources to meet their lower-level priorities, including basic needs (Spengler, 2016). In this case, equality in resource distribution enables society to overcome one of the thresholds that distinguish the upper limit and the lower limit within the society, which is the basis of indifference and deprivation. The least advantages, in this case, are therefore placed at a better opportunity while overcoming the indifference objection to equity in resource distribution. As people care much in society about how they are different or well-off compared to others, multiple thresholds of sufficientarianism are required to avoid indifference objection (Shields, 2020). The low threshold of sufficientarianism, which focuses on basic needs and the higher threshold for subjective welfare both provide gradual attainment of equality through the consumption of distributed resources. The level of relative deprivation of the person left behind by the resource distribution results in a discontent environment where such individuals feel that the resource distribution leaves them worse off compared to others (Axelsen & Nielsen, 2014). The lack of contentedness by the top individuals in society indicates that sufficientarianism approaches are relevant in reducing the gap between the top and the bottom, which provides support for the endorsement of equality in resource and welfare distribution in society.
Aspiring for equality in the distribution of resources hence seeks to overcome inequalities in areas that often impede individuals in society from living successful lives (Shields, 2020). Equal resource distribution should therefore target the resources whose distribution is in conflict with distributive justice in society. For example, it is not prudent to indicate that different people in society should have access to equal levels of housing in order to overcome inequality and lead a successful life. It is not prudent to indicate that someone with access to a perfect house pursues a successful life compared to that without access to a perfectly enhanced house (Axelsen & Nielsen, 2014). Equal distribution of resources should target those resources where minor pressures and obstacles make one group unable to lead a successful life compared to others. Therefore, to enhance the chances of success, resource distribution should target those resources with the highest contribution to inequality, such as health, work and education, which are the key socio-economic determinants of inequality and not duress nor choice. There is no justification for the trade-off in this case. However, it is important to note that prioritization acknowledges the needs of the least advantaged in society, which should be prioritized in resource distribution to bridge the gap between the top and the bottom (Shields, 2020). Those below the set threshold are therefore prioritized in resource distribution which underlies vertical equality. Vertical equality implies that individuals with greater needs should have access to the available resources compared to those with fewer needs (Axelsen & Nielsen, 2014). The priority provided to those below the threshold would therefore diminish as they move closer to the threshold but diminishes after to avoid resulting in other inefficiencies within the economy. Prioritization, in this case, advances vertical equity in resource distribution by considering the absolute thresholds that differentiate the conditions of people within the society.
In conclusion, the arguments provided in this paper revolve around priority, equality and sufficiency. The egalitarian and prioritarian principles are pluralist compared to sufficientarianism. But the prioritarian sufficientarian is pluralist In that it supports equity in resource distribution. The arguments indicated the need to prioritize disadvantaged individuals such as the poor, political, ethnic and racial minorities under the given absolute measure of socio-economic level. Resource distribution based on the arguments provided can elevate those below a given threshold, which reduces the gap between the top and bottom groups within the society. Equitable distribution is important in ensuring all the members of society have development opportunities. Access to resources in the open economy market is determined by scarcity and availability, which indicates that certain individuals and groups within the society have limited access to meet their demands. In order to avoid the scenario above, equality in resource distribution aims to reduce overconsumption and accumulation of resources by the elite within the society at the expense of those at the bottom. Equality in resource distribution, therefore, prevents the elite from accruing large benefits in society that heighten inequality by levelling down the differences through distributive justice. When understanding equality in resource distribution, it should be acknowledged that it is less committed to those above the upper threshold as part of elevating those below the threshold to reduce the existing gap. This is important as it prevents division in a society where resources are spread to different groups instead of overconsumption and accumulation by the few elite people.
References
Anselmi, L., Lagarde, M. and Hanson, K. 2014. Equity in the allocation of public sector financial resources in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic literature review. Health Policy and Planning. 30(4), pp.528–545.
Atuguba, R.A. 2013. Equality, non-discrimination and fair distribution of the benefits of development.
Axelsen, D.V. and Nielsen, L. 2014. Sufficiency is freedom from duress. Journal of Political Philosophy. 23(4), pp.406–426.
Matt, P.-A. and Toni, F. 2006. Egalitarian allocations of indivisible resources: Theory and computation. Cooperative Information Agents X., pp.243–257.
McIntyre, D. and Kutzin, J. 2011. Revenue collection and pooling arrangements in financing. Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries., pp.77–101.
Moreno-Ternero, J.D. and Roemer, J.E. 2012. A common ground for resource and welfare egalitarianism. Games and Economic Behavior. 75(2), pp.832–841.
Shields, L. 2020. Sufficientarianism 1. Philosophy Compass. 15(11), pp.1–10.
Spengler, L. 2016. Two types of ‘enough’: Sufficiency as minimum and maximum. Environmental Politics. 25(5), pp.921–940.
write