Why does it matter what we equalize?

Because the same commitment to equality yields sharply different policies depending on the currency chosen; equalizing welfare, resources, or capabilities can recommend very different treatment of, for example, people with disabilities or expensive tastes.

Equality of What

This topic addresses the question of the proper 'currency' of egalitarian justice — whether a society committed to equality should equalize welfare, resources, opportunity, or capabilities.

Definition

The 'equality of what?' question asks what variable — the equalisandum or currency of justice — should be made equal among persons when equality is sought, since different answers yield very different distributive prescriptions.

Scope

Covers Sen's framing of the question and his capability answer, welfarist and resourcist alternatives (equality of welfare, equality of resources), opportunity-based variants (equal opportunity for welfare or advantage), and the comparison of these metrics. The intrinsic value of equality is treated elsewhere.

Core questions

Which variable should egalitarians seek to equalize?
Why prefer resources, welfare, opportunity, or capabilities as the metric?
Should the metric be sensitive to people's choices and tastes?
How does the choice of currency interact with personal responsibility?

Key concepts

the equalisandum
equality of welfare
equality of resources
primary goods
capabilities
equal opportunity for advantage
expensive tastes

Key theories

Capability as the currency: Sen argues that neither utility nor primary goods is the right space for equality, because people differ in their ability to convert means into well-being; the proper metric is basic capabilities — what people can actually do and be.
Equality of resources: Dworkin argues for equalizing resources rather than welfare, using a hypothetical auction and insurance scheme so that distribution is sensitive to people's ambitions and choices but not to their unchosen endowments.
Access to advantage: Cohen argues that the correct currency lies between resources and welfare: egalitarians should equalize access to 'advantage', neutralizing involuntary disadvantage of any kind, whether in resources or in welfare.

History

The debate was set off by Sen's 1979 Tanner Lecture 'Equality of What?', which criticized both utilitarian and Rawlsian metrics. Dworkin's two-part 1981 papers on equality of welfare and resources, and the responses of Cohen and Arneson in 1989, established the modern map of rival currencies.

Debates

Resources, welfare, or capabilities?: Whether egalitarian justice should track resources (Dworkin), welfare or access to advantage (Cohen), or capabilities (Sen) as its fundamental currency.
The expensive-tastes problem: Whether equality of welfare wrongly requires compensating people for costly preferences they could control, a worry that motivates resource- and opportunity-based metrics.

Key figures

Amartya Sen
Ronald Dworkin
G. A. Cohen
Richard Arneson

Seminal works

sen1980
dworkin2000
cohen1989

Frequently asked questions

Why does it matter what we equalize?: Because the same commitment to equality yields sharply different policies depending on the currency chosen; equalizing welfare, resources, or capabilities can recommend very different treatment of, for example, people with disabilities or expensive tastes.