Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow Balancing Needs and Abilities - Literature of Liberty, January/March 1979, vol. 2, No. 1

Return to Title Page for Literature of Liberty, January/March 1979, vol. 2, No. 1

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory

Balancing Needs and Abilities - Leonard P. Liggio, Literature of Liberty, January/March 1979, vol. 2, No. 1 [1979]

Edition used:

Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought was published first by the Cato Institute (1978-1979) and later by the Institute for Humane Studies (1980-1982) under the editorial direction of Leonard P. Liggio.

Part of: Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought, 20 vols. 19781-982

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


Balancing Needs and Abilities

James P. Sterba

  • Notre Dame University

“Distributive Justice.” American Journal of Jurisprudence 22 (1977): 55–80.

John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971) argues that people choosing a fair and just social contract in an “original position” behind a “veil of ignorance” would follow a “maximin” strategy (i.e., “always choose that state of affairs in which the lowest class will have the best of a bad situation) rather than a maximum utility strategy (i.e., “always choose that state of affairs which has the highest average utility”). Contrary to Rawls, however, a just society and a just distribution requires transcending both strategies and calls for principles that (1) define the fair minimum economic and social position of everyone which lies intermediate between these two strategies; and (2) “allow private appropriation and voluntary exchange to govern the distribution of social goods once the minimum has been guaranteed.”

Sterba agrees with Rawls that deliberators of a social contract in the “original position” would reject the maximum utility strategy since it would not guarantee an acceptable minimum standard of living to everyone. But Sterba contends that this rejection does not entail accepting Rawls's maximin strategy. The original deliberators would also reject maximin (and its “difference principle”) as a distributive strategy because it would provide a minimum social standard that they consider too high. A certain group of individuals, anticipating the added burdens they would have to incur by rising to superior or more advantaged social positions, would choose not to rise socially. Those in the “original position” would object to the “high” minimum guaranteed by the “difference principle” to such a group of “free riders” and thus would reject the maximin strategy.

Four principles would satisfy the desire of those in the “original position” both to guarantee an acceptable minimum distribution of goods to the needy, and to allow those contributing more to society to retain a greater share of what they create:

  • (1)The Principle of Need guarantees the primary social goods required to satisfy everyone's basic needs at little social cost.
  • (2)The Principle of Appropriation and Exchange would distribute social goods in excess of the primary social goods through private and voluntary agreement.
  • (3)The Principle of Minimal Contribution stipulates that those of ability be required to contribute to the guaranteed minimum social goods when necessary.
  • (4)The Principle of Savings states that the rate of savings for each generation should represent its fair contribution to maintaining a society whose members all fully enjoy its just institutions.

The acceptable social minimum is secured by the principles of need, savings, and minimal contribution. The principle of appropriation and exchange creates productive incentives by allowing individuals to retain a larger share of what they produce.