The Importance of What We Care About

A Solidarity Approach to Resource Allocation

Bibliographic Data

ID6345295
AuthorsKirk A Olson (0000-0002-1441-9692, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME, USA, corresponding author)
Year2022
Volume70
Issue2
Pages502-518
Publication date2022-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitical Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0032-3217 • E-ISSN: 1467-9248
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0032321720972872
OpenAlexW3111208671
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited22

At some point in your life, you will need to allocate resources among individuals, but how should you do so? One prominent suggestion is the envy test: the envy test is satisfied when and only when no one prefers someone else’s bundle. In Part I, I explain and then reject Tom Parr’s recent attempt to justify the envy test. Yet, like Parr, I believe the envy test captures something important. Thus, in Part II, I distinguish two approaches to resource allocation. Parr’s defense of the envy test assumes what I will call an individualist approach: what matters are each individual’s preferences. In lieu of the individualist approach, I endorse the solidarity approach: what matters are everyone’s preferences. After explaining the distinction, I show that the envy test—or at least something like it—can be defended using the solidarity approach even if it cannot be defended using the individualist approach

Economics · Individualism · Law and economics · Management · Methodological individualism · Microeconomics · Point (geometry · Political science · Positive economics · Resource allocation · Sociology · Solidarity · Test (biology · Free Will and Agency · Law · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOI