Stumbling and Mumbling: Envy: two questions

« Modernity versus professionalism | Main | Redistribution under New Labour »

September 02, 2006

Envy: two questions

In response to this post, Greg Mankiw says:

I am uncomfortable making envy a basis for public policy.

His discomfort needs unbundling.
The first question is an empirical one: is the unhappiness the poor feel about the consumption of the rich really just envy?
Maybe not. There are two other hypotheses. One is that there are genuine consumption externalities. For example, if the rich drive hummers and big SUVs, they make roads more dangerous for the rest of us. Or perhaps their demand raises the prices of positional goods, such as houses in nice areas.
The other possibility is that "envy" is, in fact, a sense of injustice. Most people don't much begrudge a lottery winner or top sportsman his fortune. Instead, what looks like "envy" is instead a discomfort that some people's wealth is unjust. When people look at the wealth of David Lesar or Paris Hilton, is it really just envy they feel?
The second question is: why should we disqualify envy from influencing policy?
The obvious possibility is that it's an other-regarding preference. But why should these be ignored in policy-making? In simple-minded utilitarianism, they're preferences just like any other, and not fulfilling them makes their owners unhappier.
There is of course a powerful liberal case for ignoring other-regarding preferences. But if we do this, it's not just envy that might get disqualified. So too (arguably) must distaste of homosexuals and drug-takers, and - of course - racist preferences.
If other-regarding preferences such as envy are to be discounted, American politics would look rather different.

September 02, 2006 in Philosophy | Permalink

Comments

The rich just wish they could be envious too.

Posted by: tom s. | September 02, 2006 at 08:37 PM

Most people don't much begrudge a lottery winner or top sportsman his fortune. Instead, what looks like "envy" is instead a discomfort that some people's wealth is unjust. When people look at the wealth of David Lesar or Paris Hilton, is it really just envy they feel?

I think it's more of a class thing really. Most people don't begrudge Messrs. Beckham and Rooney their large salaries, and they don't begrudge the fact that, say, Coleen McLoughlin has fame and wealth by virtue of the fact that she's shagging Wayne, or that the Beckham children have rooms full of expensive toys and will grow up to be wealthy privileged young men.

Despite their wealth and fame, people feel able to identify with sportsmen and pop stars - they may not be able to duplicate what they do to earn a living, but they can understand it.

How many people could explain how a David Lesar or a Warren Buffet makes his money?

Posted by: Sam | September 02, 2006 at 08:59 PM

Isn't the 'other-regarding preferences are illegitimate' line a bit of a busted flush? After all, there are plenty of what look like strong candidates for being other-regarding preferences - that the innocent go free, that my children do well - which we regard as perfectly legitimate. Also, the distinction depends on being able to provide a hard and fast distinction between other-regarding and self-regarding preferences which I'd guess is fairly hard to get.

Posted by: Rob | September 03, 2006 at 01:43 PM

avcmo wkvofruad irfu pftsu lwoicgm latupjfkg ncvquxd

Posted by: shubif wvkblndqi | July 06, 2007 at 04:46 AM