The ‘Deserving’ Rich? Inequality, Morality and Social Policy

Abstract

There is a long tradition in social policy of discussing and critiquing the notion of ‘deservingness’ in relation to ‘the poor’. This paper will apply such debates to ‘the rich’ to consider the grounds on which this group might be considered ‘deserving’. The paper identifies three sets of arguments. The first set of arguments concerns the appropriateness of rewarding merit/hard work/effort/risk-taking etc. The second concerns more consequentialist/economic arguments about providing incentives for wealth creation. And the third considers the character and behaviour of the rich. As well as discussing the potential criteria for deservingness, the paper will also debate whether the degree of income and wealth gained by the rich is deserved. Finally, the paper will discuss the social policy implications, including taxation policies, which emerge from this debate.

The Allen Report: class, gender and disadvantage

“…The study was small in scale and, therefore, the findings may not be generalisable, but it is clear that the view of this social worker does resonate closely with the work of Rowlingson and Connor (2011), who argue that public perceptions of 'deservingness' are intricately linked to beliefs about loci of responsibility. Thus, rather than being seen as living with a range of adversities, income-poor working-class mothers are ascribed a 'spoilt identity' that not only ignores their own need for support, but which has consequences that need to be managed.…”

Distributive Justice With and Without Culture

“…Whether or not the public actually support inequality, they have been willing to comply with trends that benefit the rich and hurt the poor. The lack of visible concern gives the impression that the rich somehow deserve their rewards, even though the reasons for this are seldom clarified (Rowlingson and Connor, 2011;Sachweh, 2012). In a culture accustomed to income and wealth accumulation, perceptions of inequality will be dulled or biased and people may underestimate its extent (Norton and Ariely, 2011;Cruces, Perez-Truglia and Tetaz, 2013).…”

Compulsory Income Management: A Critical Examination of the Emergence of Conditional Welfare in Australia

“…In addition, no research has been completed that shows that irresponsible behaviours such as drinking and gambling are more prevalent among income support recipients than other community members. Many others in the community, including some very affluent business people and sports stars and others whose wealth is inherited or unearned, also engage in antisocial activities such as wholesale substance use, gambling, and reckless spending, but are rarely targeted for collective monitoring and public condemnation (Rowlingson & Connor, 2011). In addition, the evidence provided in favour of the effectiveness of the existing Australian CIM appears to be empirically weak, and based on the selective use of findings from government-commissioned consultations and evaluation reports.…”