Rawls, The Lexical Difference Principle and Equality

Abstract

First we have to assume that an appropriate framework of institutions is in place. That constraint alone sets Rawls apart from those (mostly, it must be said, economists) who regard the Pareto principle as self-evident. Next, the least well-off must benefit if a change is to be regarded as an improvement. In contrast, a Paretian would say that a change from which someone other than the worst-off gained and nobody lost is an improvement. Rawls describes the difference principle as 'a strongly egalitarian conception', and emphasizes the point by describing the case of a two-person society in which both are equal: 'No matter how much either person's situation is improved, there is no gain from the standpoint of the difference principle unless the other gains also' (Theory of ustice, p. 76). Hence any gain from which some benefit and none lose is not a change for the better, according to the difference principle, unless the worstoff are among those who benefit; a change which does not benefit them is not an improvement, even though it fulfils the criterion of a Pareto gain.