How to Identify Disadvantage: Taking the Envy Test Seriously

Abstract

In this article, I am concerned exclusively with the kind of comparative disadvantage an individual suffers in having less valuable opportunities than another individual and that may entitle her to corrective action, such that we ought to regulate the risk of this disadvantage and/or consider compensating her if she suffers disadvantage. The dominant approach in both political philosophy and public policy proceeds by identifying a metric by which to determine whether an individual’s opportunities are less valuable than another’s. Let’s call this the Metric Test. However, there is another way in which to proceed. Rather than appealing to a metric by which to determine disadvantage, we could instead allow an individual to determine for herself whether or not she is disadvantaged. On the version of this view that I shall defend, we should treat an individual as disadvantaged if and only if that individual envies another’s opportunities. Let’s call this the Envy Test. My overall aim in this article is to illuminate the appeal of the Envy Test and, in particular, to explain its superiority over the Metric Test.

A philosopher's guide to multidimensional equality

“…The second approach is the envy test (Dworkin, 1981b; Foley, 1967; Heilmann & Wintein, 2021; Kolm, 1971; Parr, 2018; Tinbergen, 1930, 1946; Varian, 1975). Suppose Smith has {one apple, two oranges} while Jones has {two apples, one orange}.…”

The Importance of What We Care About: A Solidarity Approach to Resource Allocation

“…The metric test is a generic name for any test that utilizes the following two-step process: First, a metric—such as welfare or social primary goods—is chosen. Second, each bundle is evaluated using the chosen metric (Parr, 2018: 308). Parr leaves the metric unspecified; he aims to show that the envy test is better than the metric test regardless of which metric is chosen.…”

“…Parr leaves the metric unspecified; he aims to show that the envy test is better than the metric test regardless of which metric is chosen. For our purposes, then, we can focus on the essential difference between the two tests: namely, the envy test asks the individual to compare her bundle to other bundles; the metric test, in contrast, does not (Parr, 2018: 307n.3).…”

“…In this essay, I examine a different type of answer, one exemplified in a recent essay by Tom Parr (2018). Parr’s paper is noteworthy in that he makes the arguments for the envy test explicit.…”

Mitigating the costs of departure. Brain drain, disadvantage and fair burden-sharing

“…Subsequently, we examine the structure of her argument, claiming that even if we grant that highly skilled workers are causally responsible for disadvantaging individuals in source countries, it does not necessarily follow that they are the sole (or even primary) bearers of moral duties to compensate them. Finally, we outline a Dworkinian conception of how to identify disadvantages, recently articulated by Parr (2018), and we apply it to the case of brain drain, concluding that the asymmetrical treatment of highly skilled workers in developing and developed countries advocated by Brock is unjustifiable on grounds of fairness.…”