The Contribution of Rawls Primary Goods Account to Discussions of Economic and Social Inequalities - Essay Example

Evaluate the contribution of Rawl’s primary goods account to discussions of economic and social inequalities Rawl’s view of primary goods posits that they are critical or central to human freedom Rawl categorised the primary goods as follows the basic liberties and rights as provided in the Bill of Rights. He observed an individual would acquire justice when he or she receives the above liberties and basic rights. The second category of Rawl’s primary goods is the Non-basic right (Sen, 1979:12). These rights occur in society by virtue that they relate to certain political inclination. For instance, the contribution of the Congress, in creating policies that would influence the societal justice. The existence of any human being depends on these goods. The third category is the wealth and income. Rawl argued that the primary goods had some relationship with the social welfare. Since human beings derive their happiness from the social welfare, it means that primary goods would contribute to human happiness. In most government system, policies on economic goods tend to influence the distribution of the primary goods in relation to satisfying the human rights. An individual does not have a choice when it comes to attending to the needs of basic right. Life traces its root from these rights thus; the conditions that influence these rights must be subject to control. Rawl views the primary goods as factors that will influence an individual ability to achieve the desired goals in life. While is it evident that some individuals will not exert the same efforts towards social development, it does not mean that authorities should practice unequal distribution of basic rights. Rawl perspective of inequality as an injustice posits that a segment within a nation would find itself unable to meet the basic liberties despite their best efforts (Sen, 1979:12). In essence the presence of poverty or inequality in the society occur due principles which fails to address the basic needs of all segments of the society. In Rawl’s view, should be impartial in addressing social needs. He criticised policies which economic policies, which promote social inequality by overlooking the rights of a section of the society. Rawl’s view of primary goods posits that they are critical or central to human freedom (Asselin and Dauphin, 2001:12). The existence of any human being depends on these goods. The argument tends to influence the economists view of goods. The distinction between the primary goods and other types of goods tend to borrow the perspectives of Rawl. It means that economic goods in the sense of Rawl must be either primary or secondary. Since the primary goods are essential as human basic freedom, human beings cannot do without them. In most government system, policies on economic goods tend to influence the distribution of the primary goods in relation to satisfying the human rights. An individual does not have a choice when it comes to attending to the needs of basic right. Life traces its root from these rights thus; the conditions that influence these rights must be subject to control. Rawl views the primary goods as factors that will influence an individual ability to achieve the desired goals in life. This argument tends to coincide with economists view of primary goods. The essentiality of these goods steers the society to the next level. The right to life is as primary as the basic goods. The focus that an individual may project in the society would depend on the ability to achieve the basic items. Theories about human needs tend to address the need to satisfy the basic needs as opposed to other needs (Risse, 2009:3). The primary needs affect the lives of every individual as opposed to other needs within the society. Conversely, this behaviour of the primary goods would influence attempts to initiate economic development in the society. For instance, people tend to work to satisfy the primary needs first before thinking of the other needs in the hierarchy of needs. As the satisfaction of the basic needs progresses, an individual would think of satisfying the other needs. The categorisation of goods influences the pricing control by government agencies. For instance, government command a great control on the primary products such as foodstuffs and medicine because they influence the lives of the people. This does not mean that other goods are less essential but prioritisation influences the mode of satisfaction. Rawl perspective has an influence on the approach that the government design its policies regarding the distribution of the basic goods (Risse, 2009:5). For instance, the government might decide to withdraw levies on basic commodities because of the greater good of serving the interest of the majority of the society. Such tax holiday tend to influence the prices of other luxurious goods. For instance, when the government respond to food shortages it might scrap policies that influence importation of such product in order to boost the supply of these products in the market. Largely, the choice depends on the influence that the food shortage would create to the growth of the economy. For instance, the shortage of primary goods would interfere with the cost of living. Thus, the government would cushion her people from suffering the adversity of the above effects. 2. Is it possible to operationalise Sen’s capability approach? Sen’s capability perspective argues in favour of an individual who settles to pursue his personal interest which a view attaining a valuable state (Sen, 1979:16). Individual entitlement is critical to achieving Sen’s capabilities. He argued that social problems occurred not because the society has deprived her people from achieving certain factors, but from failure of the society to entitle her people to certain virtues. For instance, he argued that famine and its effect occur because the authority has failed to empower the society. In this sense, it is arguable that when society empowers her people through policies and the needed resources the Sen’s capability would be achievable. Sen’s model proposes the use of the capabilities and the available resources to create some functionality in the society (Asselin and Dauphin, 2001:12). He observed that inequality and equality in the society occur due to deprivation or absent of critical components, which influence human capabilities. The figures about economic growth fail to show the real situation of the ground in relation to poverty or income of a given group in the society. Sen believed that denial of human rights to characteristics observed on the economic differences. Human freedom steers the society to the level that it seeks to attain because the room created by freedom permits individual to develop alternative approaches of undertaking the daily chores. The society could not purport to be development oriented when it infringes of the rights of the people. Unlocking the potential of the society require diverse views in an environment that allows experiment. Thus, substantive freedom has a direct relation with poverty. Sen observed that political and civil rights influence economic growth and equality in society. He argued in favour of human freedom, which promotes economic growth as opposed to political systems that favour economic growth at the expense of human freedom. The economic structures should endeavour to advance human capabilities. In Sen’s view, the same above would be achievable when the society anchors its economic structures on human rights. The society can achieve Sen’s capabilities when the approach given in addressing human rights address the changes society is achieving in a specific context. For instance, Sen observed the deprivation of basic rights in India and deprivation of basic rights in central Asia result into economic poverty, however, the contributing factors differs. Thus addressing the above deprivation must take its own approach. Sen’s capability perspective argues in favour of an individual who settles to pursue his personal interest which a view attaining a valuable state. The proposal is a quite possible owing to the fact that many people who identify the pressing needs in the society are able to pursue these interests for the well-being of the society. Many critics believe the Sen’s approach is multidimensional because it has broad concerns, which it addresses (Risse, 2009:12). These concerns could be difficult to attain because of the complexity involved in creating a framework of achieving the capabilities. Sen’s model proposes the use of the capabilities and the available resources to create some functionality in the society. The economists’ view to Sen’s view offers an opportunity for exploring the extent to which the capability approach could attain some operation. Freedom steers the society to the level that it seeks to attain because the room created by freedom permits individual to develop alternative approaches of undertaking the daily chores. The society could not purport to be development oriented when it infringes of the rights of the people. Unlocking the potential of the society require diverse views in an environment that allows experiment. Since Sen does not provide a framework for pursuing the capabilities, it is upon the society to create a framework of evaluating the approaches they take towards achieving the desired needs. For instance, economic growth depends on a number of factors that include financial innovation. The financial innovation that the society has operationalised is due to the urge to urge the greater freedom by using the existing resources and capabilities to create the desired result. The nature of capabilities described by Sen is within the reach of the immediate society; however, they depend on the immediate demands that the society has. For instance, the ground for international trade traces its root from the demands exerted by the society. These demands necessitated the lifting of the global barriers that influenced the acquisition of the desired freedom in the global scale hence, operationalisation of the Sen Capability approach (Sen, 2002:12). The operationalisation of the Sen Capability approach depends on the context, which defines the desired demand. For example, a demand in a monopolised market is to lift the factors that promote monopolisation. This would enable the society to move towards acquiring the freedom of utilizing the existing resources for the well-being of the society. Boundaries within the society define the amount of freedom that a person commands. Within a given boundary, the given community will learn to exercise their opportunity within a defined range. However, the lifting of these boundaries opens room for sharing knowledge and other valuable resources, which would influence the utilisation of the capabilities. The social groups exist by virtue that they share some similar characteristics (Sen, 2002:8). The urge to introduce new characteristics within a social condition must borrow from other sources. Thus, the capability and the resources within the given society would be functional when ideas from outside sources come into use. The tool that has led the society towards innovation is the demand within a given society. However, social attributes, which promote coexistence, have promoted the interest of the society beyond the given boundary. The above argument favours the operationalisation of Sen’s capability approach. 3. Describe and critically evaluate traditional welfarist views of equality. Utilitarian Equality The utilitarian equality tends to argue in favour uniform distribution of the social resources. The utility of the resources tend to decrease as the quantity of the resources increases. In this view, maximisation of resource utilization does not consider distribution trends, which influence marginalisation or equality. The utilitarian utility view posits that each individual would receive the share of the resource. It embodies equal societal treatment, where the interest of everybody receives attention. Critics supporting utilitarian equality argue that it promotes universality (Odi Briefing Paper, 2001:2). The features of utilitarian equality avoid instances of discriminative distribution of human needs. Utilitarian utility reflects human needs that are attributed to marginal utilities. Largely, fairness would be evident in utilitarian system when the segments of society receive the same quantity of resource. Total Utility Equality Critics on welfarist argue that total utility equality is a concept that is observable as opposed to utilitarian utility. The resource distribution procedure in this case has to contribute to all the needs of an individual. In dealing with individual needs, it has to offer all the needs that an individual would require. The judgment given to utilisation of resources in this case observes the level of distribution as well as the amount of goodness that the society has been able to derive from resource distribution. Critics believe that total utility equality would lead to lexim (Odi Briefing Paper. 2001:4). The argument put in support of this posits that the provision of resources must provide the full needs of the recipients. Thus, it would consider factor that promote marginalisation as well as satisfaction of the utilities. Prioritisation of an individual’s needs over the other is one of the features of the total utility equality. Rawlsian Equality Rawl’s perspective of equality argues in favour of his principle against the primary goods. Rawl pointed out that people cannot lead a substantive life when they fail to achieve the primary goods. The principle for judging inequality would be the index of the primary goods. The primary goods include liberties, wealth, rights, income, and opportunities. Rawl believed that addressing the needs of the society would mean providing the above primary needs. The priority observed in addressing the primary needs is not a major concern, but the outcome of the choice. Thus, social equality would be evident when the society manages to distribute the social needs equally. According Rawl, an individual may fail to achieve economically because he or she is not able to access the primary goods. In this case, economic growth relies on the goodness created through utilization of the primary goods. Further, social deprivation would occur when the society fails to accords her people the potentially to achieve the primary goods. Traditional welfarist view influences the approach that policy makers take because it would make it quite intricate to address poverty on a vast scale. For instance, inequality in the society occurs due to the resource allocation bias. The bias depends on policies, which influence target regions where poverty is rampant. It is probable that a region may comprise of rich families, however, the same community might not miss poor individuals. The measure given to societal inequality usually assesses the ability of individuals through the poverty survey. By interpreting the inequality of a given group within the society resource allocation would address the poverty effects. The traditional welfarist approach to inequality subjects the whole society to a particular level. This means that addressing inequality in the society using the traditional welfarist would subject the society to equal resource allocation, which will not solve but would promote the existence of poverty in the society. Failure to consider the measurement in resource allocation makes the traditional system ineffective in addressing poverty. When a poor society gets the resources they will strive attain a given standard. However, directing these resources equally would widen the gap between the poor and the haves. Many critics believe that resource allocation is subject to political manipulation. Conversely, good political manipulation would adopt a measurable approach where resource allocation considers the differences in equality level before disbarment. Social theorists suggest have suggested alternative approach to traditional welfarist approach. The spread of inequality across the global is due to the approach that the society takes when targeting to stump the influence of the inequality. For instance, the unemployment inequality is a concern that many societies have sought to address. An approach that does not consider a given group in allocating employment opportunity might lock the underserved group because it would deny the group any substantial benefits. Most policies addressing inequality in the society tend to measure the trend of the inequality in question before developing a system of addressing it. For instance, societies where schools are not popular need to get a large share of resources in building new projects as opposed to allocating similar resources to society that are operational. Measures such as economic growth determine the rate of inequality that exists in the society. Many critics believe that the approach adapted in addressing inequality in the society determine the level of change that the society would receive. The market outcomes as well as social trends are critical in designing the appropriate method of handling inequality in the society. 4. Does context matter in the conception and measurement of poverty? Give reasons for your answer I think the conception and measurement of poverty matter because of a number of reasons. First, the method used to measure poverty would influence economic growth. Critics contend the varied methods of poverty measurement would yield varied outcome. Thus, the policies used in addressing poverty would not be uniform. The information about societal well being would help in devising policies for the resource allocation. In the view of traditional welfarist, the allocation of resources would not consider the variance in inequality level; however, by measuring the poverty trend the society can be able to tackle the poverty menace within a group. For instance, a factor that leads to poverty prevalence within a given geographical location might not be the same factor that promotes prevalence of poverty in another region. This means that the measurement of poverty trend would help in developing mechanism for addressing poverty bite within the context of the targeted environment. For instance, a place may lavish in poverty because of inadequate resources to steer the poverty fight, conversely, another region may suffer poverty because of policy concern. The overall concern in both societies in poverty prevalence, but the approach for handling poverty would not be the same. The concept of inequality derives its attributes from the features of poverty measurement. The judgement given to instances where inequality issues arise tends to evaluate concerns such as resource allocation as well as the economic status of the targeted individuals. Many critics have observed that the judgment against poverty measurement would contribute to debates such as globalisation. Comparison on the rate at which income is rising in relation to economic growth is one of the factors that the society observes when measuring poverty. The fight against inequality relies on out come of poverty measurement. The approach adopted in the fight against poverty would evaluate the variables observed in the poverty measurement as well as factors that promote their existence. In essence, the fight against inequality is not achievable without mechanism to measure poverty level. Poverty pattern and resource allocation take the shape of goals developed to avert the inequality in the society. Poverty within the society is due to a number of factors; resource allocation, policies, and cultural inclination among other factors. I think the conception and measurement of poverty matter because of a number of reasons. First, the urge to allocate resources in the society should primarily depend on the needs that the resource would address (Ravallion, 2003:6). The information about societal well being would help in devising policies for the resource allocation. In the view of traditional welfarist, the allocation of resources would not consider the variance in inequality level; however, by measuring the poverty trend the society can be able to tackle the poverty menace within a group. For instance, a factor that leads to poverty prevalence within a given geographical location might not be the same factor that promotes prevalence of poverty in another region. This means that the measurement of poverty trend would help in developing mechanism for addressing poverty bite within the context of the targeted environment. For instance, a place may lavish in poverty because of inadequate resources to steer the poverty fight, conversely, another region may suffer poverty because of policy concern. The overall concern in both societies in poverty prevalence, but the approach for handling poverty would not be the same. Cultural trends have promoted inequality in the society. Measurement will enable the policy makers influence policies, which help in fighting poverty in such situation. Critics believe that exercising justness in the fight against inequality must address sociological concerns as shaped by cultural trends (Ravallion, 2003:5). The knowledge of how the inequality arose is very critical. For instance, economic inequality across gender bias emanated from cultural practices that sidelined a given group. An approach used in addressing this difference would take a particular approach because it intends to create a particular outcome out a given group. It would be ill to target the same group with the special concern as the whole society. Trends adopted by the non-governmental bodies in addressing poverty rely of measurements (Vizard, 2005:15). The reason behind this is to elevate the present condition of the given group in order to attain the desired status. The identification of the individual need makes the fight against poverty easy because it would help in addressing specific concern. Some critics argue that it would be ill to group the whole community together without visiting individuals’ views or factors that promote a given condition within a particular environment (Vizard, 2005:15). The new welfarist perspective in addressing poverty and inequality in the society argues in favour of resource allocation according the gravity of the need. Thus, measurement of the inequality trends is not an option but a necessity in addressing inequality. Some practices in the society may promote poverty prevalence in a given society. This means that elimination of such practices would eradicate the menace of poverty. For instance, peasant farmers may enjoy good weather conditions but fail to conduct a sustainable agriculture because of the practices they employ in the farming (Dauphin and Asselin, 2001:14). Reforming such society might requirement material resources but services resources like education about better practices. It is arguable that reformation of this society would eventually create equality because the specific concern that influence they lives is no more. Successful societies have devised policies that aim at addressing a specific inequality need in a given environment. Bibliography Asselin, L and Dauphin, A. 2001. POVERTY MEASUREMENT. Available from http://www.pep-net.org/fileadmin/medias/pdf/asselin/Poverty.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2012]. Dauphin, A. and Asselin, L. 2001. Poverty Measurement. Available from: http://www.pep-net.org/fileadmin/medias/pdf/asselin/Poverty.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2012] Odi Briefing Paper. 2001. Economic Theory, Freedom and Human Rights: The Work of Amartya Sen. Available from http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/2321.pdf [Accessed on 27 May 2012] Ravallion, M. 2003. The Debate on Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Why Measurement Matters. Available from http://www2.econ.uu.nl/users/marrewijk/pdf/ihs/geo/ravallion%202003%20glob%20debate.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2012] Risse, M. Rawls on Responsibility and Primary Goods. Available from http://mora.rente.nhh.no/projects/EqualityExchange/ressurser/articles/risse2.pdf [Accessed on 27 May 2012] Sen, A. 1979. Equality of What? Available from http://culturability.fondazioneunipolis.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files_mf/1270288635equalityofwhat.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2012] Sen, A. 2002. Human Rights and Capabilities. Available from http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Human_Rights_and_Capabilities.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2012] Vizard, P. 2005. The Contributions of Professor Amartya Sen in the Field of Human Rights. Available from http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper91.pdf [Accessed 27 May 2012] Read More