Stone (2002). Policy Paradox.

Deborah StoneChapter 1the polis and the marketthe polis: cooperation; the market: competitionthe polis: loyalties; the market: no "glue"the polis: groups/orgs; the market: individualsthe polis: inperfect information/interpretation; the market: perfect informationthe polis: the law of passion; the market: laws of matter (finate, scarce, consumed...otherwise collective good)the polis: exchange ideas; the market: exchange goodsthe polis: public interest; the market: public interestChapter 2equity"who gets what, when and how?"distribution is at the heart of political conflict. example: dividing up a cake; what is considered equal an equal distribution? Approaches to distributive justice: Rawls and NozickNozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia. "distrivution is just of it came about by a voluntary and fair process (53)."Rawls: A Theory of Justice. "veil of ignorance." end-result concept.In Policy Paradox, Stone presents two views on the distribution of equity; a Rawlsian view and that of Robert Nozick. Nozick argues that “a distribution is just if it came about by a voluntary and fair process” (Stone 2002, 53). In Theory, an unequal distribution could be judged as being a fair distribution due to the fairness of the process. A different view is more Rawlsian and Nozick calls it the end-result concept. In the end result concept “in order to judge whether a distribution is fair, we look only at the end result and do not need any historical information as to how the distribution came about” (Stone 2002, 54). Inevitably, “people who hold an end result view of equity are more likely to favor direct redistribution” (Stone 2002, 55) if it means the end-result would be an equal distribution. Nozick would not favor direct redistribution.My question is why would Nozick not favor a direct redistribution if the final result would be equity? Why would the process matter more than the end result?Nozick’s theory assumes that just actions yield just outcomes. But this is not always the case. The example given in Stone (2002) was the issue of slavery in the 1800’s. When considering slavery, the end-result, someone is forced to be a slave, in an inequality. But, if considering the process and that slave owners acquired their “property” fairly, men being forced into slavery, is fair. As Stone states more eloquently, “slaveholders and married men acquired their property fair and square, according to the law. So proponents of process concepts are left with the problem of where to find independent standards for judging distributive processes” (Stone 2002, 55). Another example is equal pay for men and women. Earlier in the century, the process that determined that men and women should not be paid the same amount was considered fair; men had a family to provide for and thus should be paid more money for the same job. In the case of equal pay for men and women a ‘fair’ process produced unequal results. In Nozick’s theory, the process is what matters and whatever results is equity, even if it determines men and women should not be paid the same for the same job.After a lot of thought I determined when the process might matter more, as Nozick attests: the distribution of wealth. At its simplest definition, the end result concept would see the distribution of wealth in the United States as unequal, and might purpose redistribution. Nozick, on the other hand, would look at other factors, such as why there is the inequality, and perhaps make suggestions or create opportunities that would allow for others to join those who make more money. These two different views are, as Stone suggested, socialist and capitalist.Yet I am still a skeptic. Although the book goes into detail about the trouble of defining fairness, I am curious about the definition of equality. As Rawls’s theory addresses, a society can decide what equality means; more income can be awarded to doctors or teachers so that if the end result produces differences in wealth among occupations it is still considered equal because of the decision that were previously made. As the book points out, “end result justice does not require the same amount of money for everyone or the same size winter coat…” (Stone 2002, 58). Redistribution policy merely ensures that everyone has the minimum necessary for survival; it does not propose taking away the doctor’s mansion so that he and the junky can each live in a duplex. . But trouble then arises from this solution as this subjective decision of equality is made from behind a veil, a condition not likely to be manufactured. Yet, I am still unconvinced, and my question still remains: why is the process more important? As I stated in the beginning, an equal process does not always elicit equal results; for this reason, if given an ultimatum, I would choose the end result concept of equity.