Equality and Inequality
A couple of classes ago, we learned about the Gini coefficient and how it is constructed. The Gini coefficient is a measure of income inequality in a country. It is created by the ratio between how income is actually earned by individuals and an equal distribution of income among all members of a society. This construction assumes that an equal distribution of income is the preferred outcome in any society because it is the ideal standard which the actual is compared. Distribution is used to refer to equal income being received by all people because it will never happen that way voluntarily or naturally in a market system, where production and earning are linked. Therefore the income is not earned, but distributed by someone else so that everyone gets a certain equal amount. Is an equal distribution of income to all persons in society actually the best outcome for any society? Is it the pinnacle of human achievement? Is it the best form of equality, the one that is most important?
My answer is no. Equal distribution of income assumes that the government should favor certain individuals over others by taking different shares of the income they have earned and giving it to people who didn’t earn it. Equal distribution assumes that those who earn more money have less of a right to their money (property) than those who earn less. In other words, it assumes a lack of equality before the law between persons who earn large or small amounts of money. Amount of income is just another false distinguishing factor that can be used to undermine equality before the law, which is supposed to be the birthright of every American citizen. It is for this reason that I believe equal distribution of income inherently creates legal inequality and therefore is not the best form of equality to attain.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Does the Gini really assume that an equal distribution is the preferred outcome, or does it just let us see how income may be distributed more equitably in some societies than in others? I don’t think that the sheer existence of the measure is a judgment on how income should be distributed.
April 18th, 2009 at 11:59 am
If you had not previously edited out my comments about the construction of the gini coefficient, you would never have thought that my argument was about the “sheer existence of the measure.”
Also, equally and equitably are not always interchangeable. The first does not usually connote a moral or ethical stance, whereas the latter clearly does. Therefore, your comment proves my point.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Hi, Rachel–My apologies for that–I read your entry in haste and had the Kuznet’s ratio in my head instead of the Gini. As I (incorrectly) read it, that sentence misdefined a term. However, thinking “Gini” (as the sentence told me to!), it is clear that the sentence states a fact accurately. Editing out the sentence until you could look at it (a poor decision made in haste) did in fact leave your words altered and make certain questions irrelevant.
Thank you for catching the equal/equitable distinction. I think it will be relevant to this week’s chapter material.