Economic Theory

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 425–441

Rewarding effort

Research Article


According to liberal egalitarian ethics, individuals should be rewarded for factors under their control (the principle of responsibility), but not for factors outside their control (the principle of equalization). The paper analyses the effects of two requirements on how to reward effort within a liberal egalitarian framework: the requirement of equal reward and the requirement of solidarity. We show that it is impossible to establish a framework that satisfies the principle of equalization in all respects, and that a generalized version of the egalitarian equivalent mechanism is a very plausible liberal egalitarian approach.


Liberal egalitarianism Responsibility Equalization Egalitarian equivalent mechanism 

JEL Classification

D63 D71 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alesina, A., Angletos, G.-M.: Fairness and redistribution. Am Econ Rev 95(4), 960–980 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arneson, R.: Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philos Stud 56, 159–194 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossert, W.: Redistribution mechanisms based on individual characteristics. Math Soc Sci 29, 1–17 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossert, W., Fleurbaey, M.: Redistribution and compensation. Soc Choice Welf 13, 343–355 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cappelen, A.W., Hole, A.D., Sørensen, E., Tungodden, B.: The pluralism of fairness ideals: an experimental approach. Am Econ Rev 97(3), 818–827 (2007a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappelen, A.W., Hagen, R.J., Tungodden, B.: National responsibility and the just distribution of debt relief. Ethics and International Affairs 21(1), 69–84 (2007b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cappelen, A., Norheim, O.-F.: Responsibility in health care—a liberal egalitarian approach. J Med Ethics 31, 476–480 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappelen, A., Tungodden, B.: Reward and responsibility: how should we be affected when others change their effort. Polit Philos Econ 2(2), 191–211 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cappelen, A., Tungodden, B.: Fiscal equalization and local autonomy. Soc Choice Welf 28(3), 443–460 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, G.A.: On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99, 906–944 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dworkin, R.: What is equality? Part 2: equality of resources. Philos Publ Affairs 10, 283–345 (1981)Google Scholar
  12. Fleurbaey, M.: On fair compensation. Theory Decision 36, 277–307 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fleurbaey, M.: Equal opportunity or equal social outcome. Econ Philos 11, 25–55 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleurbaey, M.: The requisites of equal opportunity. In: Barnett, W.A., Moulin, H., Salles, M., Schofield, N. (eds) Social Choice, Welfare, and Ethics., pp. 37–54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  15. Fleurbaey, M.: Three solutions for the compensation problem. J Econ Theory 65, 505–521 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleurbaey, M.: Equality and responsibility. Eur Econ Rev 39, 683–689 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleurbaey, M., Maniquet, F.: Cooperative production with unequal skills: The solidarity approach to compensation. Soc Choice Welf 16, 569–583 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J., Kurki, A.: Modelling other-regarding preferences and an experimental test. Publ Choice 119(1–2), 91–117 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iturbe-Ormaetxe, I., Nieto, J.: On fair allocations and monetary compensations. Econ Theory 7(1), 125–138 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Konow, J.: Fair shares: accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Ame Econ Rev 90(4), 1072–1091 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Konow, J.: Which is the fairest one of all. J Econ Literat 41(4), 1188–1239 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Le Grand, J.: Equity and Choice. Harper Collins, UK (1991)Google Scholar
  23. Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1971)Google Scholar
  24. Roemer, J.E.: A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philos Publ Affairs 22, 146–166 (1993)Google Scholar
  25. Roemer, J.E.: Theories of Distributive Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  26. Roemer, J.E.: Equality of Opportunity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  27. Tungodden, B.: Responsibility and redistribution: the case of first best taxation. Soc Choice Welf 24, 33–44 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Norwegian School of Economics and Business AdministrationBergenNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration and Chr. Michelsen InstituteBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations