B O O K R E V I E W

Economic Just ice in American Society. By ROBERT E. KUENNE. P r i n c e t o n , N.J . : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1993 . pp. xxiii, 435.

R o b e r t K u e n n e ' s m a j o r p u r p o s e in wr i t ing th i s b o o k is to se t in m o t i o n the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of an "economic bill of r ights" a s a m e a n s to achieve economic equi ty in Amer ican society. Not only is th i s t a sk , by itself, amb i t i ous , the m e a n s b y w h i c h he a t t e m p t s to accompl i sh it is encyclopedic in scope.

T h o u g h Kuenne ' s mis s ion is ambi t ious , he m a k e s it k n o w n ea r ly on t h a t he w i s h e s to ca r ry o u t h is p ro j ec t f i rmly in t he p ragmat i c t rad i t ion and to res i s t the urge to c o n s t r u c t a n eco- n o m i c bill of r ights , even one tha t is p r imar i ly i n t e n d e d to b e mere ly sugges t ive , ou t of whole cloth. Ins tead , he t a k e s a s a n app rop r i a t e s ta r t ing po in t the speci f ica t ion of the m o s t impor- t a n t e l e m e n t s of t he A m e r i c a n " c u l t u r a l c o m p l e x , " n a m e l y , i nd iv idua l i sm, ma te r i a l i sm , r a t i ona l i sm, a n d n o n d i s c r i m i n a - to ry ega l i t a r ian ism, and ins i s t s on the i m p o r t a n c e of a l lowing t h e s e d o m i n a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to gu ide the f o r m a t i o n of a n economic cons t i tu t ion . Put t ing as ide the ques t i on of K u e n n e ' s s u c c e s s in accompl i sh ing w h a t he in t ends , th i s cha rac t e r i za - t ion of the Amei-ican e thos is right on the m a r k and m a k e s for in te res t ing reading in its own right.

The f i r s t of t he c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s j u s t no ted , i nd i v i dua l i sm , is b r o k e n down b y Kuenne into two componen t s , the "egoistic" a n d t h e " c o m p a s s i o n a t e . " Th i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n is q u i t e inge- n ious , for it p u t s a very different sp in on the cha rac te r i za t ion of t he Amer i can e thos a s "individualist ic." Not only do A m e r i c a n s t e n d to f o c u s on t h e m s e l v e s (the n a r c i s s i s t i c or egois t ic side) b u t t h e y t end a s well to accord high e s t eem to the "individual" in the abs t rac t . This in turn , r e su l t s in genera l s u p p o r t for pro- g r a m s t h a t a id t he low i n c o m e s e g m e n t s of t h e p o p u l a t i o n . K u e n n e is t h u s ab le to re ly on t he c o u n t r y ' s p roc l iv i ty to b e ind iv idua l i s t i c a s a s o u r c e of s u p p o r t for f o rmu l a t i ng a n eco- nomic bill of r ights t ha t would , among o ther things , g u a r a n t e e a min ima l mate r i a l s t a n d a r d of living.

The b o d y of t he b o o k is d iv ided into two m a i n p a r t s , t h e f irs t of which p r e s e n t s and critically eva lua t e s severa l t heo r i e s of socia l equ i ty and p roceeds to c o n s t r u c t on the b a s i s of t h i s ana ly s i s his p r o p o s e d economic bill of r ights. T he s e c o n d p a r t is empi r i ca l in scope , p r e s e n t i n g p a t t e m s of i n c o m e d i s t r i b u -

69

t ion in the U.S. It is the first par t t h a t is the more a m b i t i o u s and interest ing, and on which mos t of the r emarks to follow will be based .

T h r e e of the six ca t egor i e s of soc ia l equ i t y t h e o r i e s t h a t are p re sen ted are descr ibed as "egoistically or iented." The f irst c lass cons ide red is descr ibed as "con t r ibu tory , " a n d c o n s i s t s of theor ies of equi ty t h a t bui ld on the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t an agen t is properly ent i t led to his or her marg ina l product . The second group of theor ies are referred to as "na tu ra l r ights" or "enti t le- men t " theor ies (a less t h a n ideal n a m e choice) and inc lude the w o r k s of Hobbes , Locke, a n d in more r e c e n t y e a r s , Nozick. W h a t s u c h theor ies have in common, according to Kuenne , is a focus on "vo lun ta ry exchange" as the critical c r i te r ion of j u s - tice. The th i rd group of egoistic theor ies is referred to as *jus- t ice as f r eedom" theor ies , as r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e w r i t i n g s of Milton Fr iedman. Kuenne sets th is sort of theory apa r t f rom the o t h e r s on the b a s i s of i ts t r e a t m e n t of f r e edom as a n e n d in i tself r a t he r t h a n as a m e a n s to an end.

The i -emaining th ree t heo re t i ca l ca t egor i e s de sc r ibed by Kuenne are described as "socially or iented theories ," and m a k e for a somewha t cur ious mix, inc luding Kan t i an no t ions of j u s - tice t h a t bui ld on the categorical imperative, u t i l i t a r i an no t ions o f j us t ice t h a t equa te the j u s t wi th t h a t wh ich m a x i m i z e s the s u m of agen t s ' u t i l i t ies , and Rawls i an pr inc ip les t h a t e q u a t e t he good socie ty wi th t h a t wh ich maximizes the wel l -being of the wors t off.

Kuenne goes to cons iderable l eng ths to cri t ical ly eva lua te t he se six c lasses in the i r concept ions of the "good," the "right" a n d a c c o r d i n g to t he i r c o n f o r m a n c e to t he p reva i l ing soc ia l ethos. It is the differences uncovered with respect to the la t te r of t h e s e t h a t is m o s t w o r t h some c o m m e n t here. As a l r e a d y noted , Kuenne r a the r ingeniously draws a t t en t ion to two quite d i s t inc t s t r a n d s of " individual ism," one of these s t r a n d s being f u n d a m e n t a l l y egois t ic in n a t u r e ( ind iv idua l i sm as se l f -con- cern), the o ther being fundamen ta l ly compass iona t e (individu- a l ism as respect for o ther "individuals"). By his in te rp re ta t ion , t he egois t ic t heo r i e s are we igh ted s t r i c t ly t o w a r d t h e f i r s t of these , fulfilling not at all the d o m i n a n t e thos ' concern for those a t the bot tom, while the social theor ies give shor t shr i f t to the egois t ic s t r a n d in the e thos while s u c c e s s f u l l y r e s p o n d i n g to the compass iona t e s t r and of individual ism.

In offering an economic bill of r ights Kuenne lets h i s fun- d a m e n t a l a l l eg iance to l i b e r t a r i a n t h o u g h t be k n o w n by a n n o u n c i n g his reject ion of the "social theories," a n d his belief

70

tha t a modified enti t lement theory along the lines specfied by Rober t Nozick shou ld serve as a guiding ph i lo sophy u n d e r - girding any such proposed bill. The possibility that he might be engaged in a hope les s ques t , a c o m p a s s i o n a t e s t r a n d of Nozickian thought , never appears to be confronted. One need not be a cynic for suspect ing that such a "humanized" version of l i be r t a r i an i sm might be every bi t the oxymoron as w a s Gorbachev 's "liberalized" Communism.

The precise link between Kuenne's mining of phi losophies of jus t ice and the economic bill of rights that emerges is never al together clear. For the bill that is proposed seems to primar- ily reflect its au th o r s pre-exist ing economic beliefs. In shor t , Kuenne ' s proposed bill of economic rights seems to be some- thing he would have been able to cons t ruc t without ever going th rough the analys is of phi losophical posi t ions that he does. The bill would gua ran t ee free t rade, the exis tence of m a r k e t m e c h a n i s m s , and would commit gove rnmen t to p u r c h a s e s th rough marke t s t ruc tu re s whenever feasible. It would guar- antee an income that permits an individual to "live in dignity and self-respect" (p. 192), with government required to bring this abou t when the individual is unable to do so. It would fur- thermore commit government to promoting equal i ty of oppor- t un i ty for all (but not equa l iuy of result) , and would requi re tha t all t ransfers be in the form of money exclusively, effectively ruling out transfers-inkind. It would prohibit discrimination on the bas i s of "irrelevant character is t ics ," effectively rul ing out any sort of "affirmative action" program. Licensing restr ict ions by gove rnmen t would only be permi t ted when "the effects of incompetent performance in such occupat ions are potent ial ly ha rmfu l to the physical or f inancial well-being of o the r s in a subs tan t i a l manner" (p. 195). All tax revenue would be ra ised exclusively through a progressive income tax.

This brief summary of Kuenne's proposal is, of course, not definitive, bu t it does serve to convey a flavor and by so doing exposes a major flaw. Kuenne 's s t ruc ture for evaluat ing com- peting philosophies of jus t ice and the analysis itself is excellent and sufficient reason to read th is book. One is, however, ha rd pu t t o f igure how his bill of r ights flows from th is ana lys i s . Rather , the impress ion is conveyed tha t the essen t i a l s of the p r o p o s e d bill of r ights were there well before Kuenne b e g a n his phi losophical searchings. Moreover, while for m o s t of the book one is of the impress ion tha t Kuenne was mot iva ted in this project by the belief that citizens are insufficiently able to tu rn to "inalienable economic rights," by the book's end a m u c h

71

m o r e conse rva t i ve i n t e r p r e t a t i o n emerges . As he s t a t e s "The l a ck of a w e l l - f o r m u l a t e d t h e o r y of e conomic j u s t i c e . . . p l a c e [socie tyl a t t he m e r c y of every aggr ieved i n t e r e s t g r o u p t h a t c lo thes i ts self ish in te r s t s in the v e s t m e n t s of jus t i ce" (p. 392). Kuenne , in shor t , s e e m s to find cu r r en t political cor rec t ives of a redis t r ibut ive sor t unpa la t ab le and wishes to see an economic bill of r igh t s t h a t m igh t c lear ly p r e - c o m m i t soc ie ty to c e r t a i n cor rec t ives b u t no more.

There is still another , p e r h a p s more ser ious , p rob l em wi th the p roposed economic bill of rights. In his critical eva lua t ion of poli t ical ph i losoph ies of jus t i ce , Kuenne is, a s a l r eady po in ted ou t , a p r a g m a t i s t . He i n s i s t s t h a t it will no t do to i m p o s e v i s i o n s of j u s t i c e on the publ ic . I n s t ead , t he f o r m a t i o n of a n e c o n o m i c c o n s t i t u t i o n m u s t a c c e p t the prevai l ing e t h o s a s a given to which any p roposed d o c u m e n t m u s t be sensit ive. F rom th is follows Kuenne ' s d ismissa l of "socially oriented" theor ies of j u s t i c e . T h e y s i m p l y fail to fit c o m f o r t a b l y wi th t h e " soc ia l e thos ."

A similar line of reasoning does not serve a s a cons t r a in t on h is c o n s t r u c t i o n of the specif ics of the economic bill of r ights . He r a t h e r a s s u m e s the role of e x p e r t in th i s c a p a c i t y a n d is comfo r t ab l e p ropos ing a bill t ha t in m a n y p a r t i c u l a r s con t ra - d i c t s t he c o n v e n t i o n a l e conomic wi sdom. T h u s , for e x a m p l e , co rpora te t axes and inher i t ance t axes wou ld be abo l i shed and all g o v e r n m e n t r e v e n u e r a i sed t h r o u g h a p rog re s s i ve i n c o m e tax , a n i dea no t e a s y to i m p l e m e n t g iven the d o m i n a n t eco- nomic ethos. Thus , as ano the r example, t r ans fe r s in -k ind wou ld be done a w a y with, a p roposa l w o r t h y of d i s c u s s i o n b u t m o s t cer ta in ly no t in keeping with prevail ing p opu l a r opinion. This is n o t i n t e n d e d to s u g g e s t t h a t a n y p r o p o s e d bill of e c o n o m i c r i g h t s m u s t be popu l i s t , b u t is i n t e n d e d to s u g g e s t t h a t it is c o n t r a d i c t o r y to p ropose an economic bill of r igh ts t h a t over- r i de s c e r t a i n p o p u l a r e c o n o m i c be l ie fs whi le s i m u l t a n e o u s l y pay ing full a l legiance to popu la r no t ions in o the r sphe re s .

In the empir ica l pa r t of the book , Kuenne p r e s e n t s ex ten- sive b r e a k d o w n s of cu r ren t d i s t r ibu t ions of income over differ- e n t s u b - g r o u p s of t he p o p u l a t i o n a n d of t r e n d s ove r t ime . T h o u g h a t t imes ted ious , th i s pa r t of the book is to be p r a i s ed for ga ther ing in one spo t a weal th of d i s t r ibu t iona l informat ion. In addi t ion , it is u s e d b y K u e n n e to offer p rec i se e s t i m a t e s of w h a t sor t of tax inc reases wou ld be requi red to accompl i sh var- i ous defini t ions of a j u s t d is t r ibut ion of income. While no t m a d e very explicit, it is a p p a r e n t f rom the p r o p o s e d economic bill of r i gh t s t h a t p r e c e d e d th i s empi r ica l effort t h a t K u e n n e w o u l d

72

p r o p o s e a c c o m p l i s h i n g the p r o p o s e d e n d s via a nega t i ve i ncome tax. Little is sa id a b o u t the incent ive effects t h a t a n y s u c h p r o g r a m m i g h t have , a n o m i s s i o n t h a t is s u r p r i s i n g in l ight of t he i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t of c o n t e m p o r a r y l ibe ra l s a n d conservat ives alike with such a quest ion.

Viewed as a uni f ied work, t h i s book suf fe r s some s e r i ous flaws. As I have sough t to emphasize, the economic bill of r ights does no t emerge as it m i g h t have have f rom the encyc loped ic s u r v e y of economic theo r i e s of j u s t i c e t h a t p r e c e d e d it. B u t viewed s imply in t e rms of its individual parts , the book cer ta in ly m e r i t s a t t e n t i o n . While no t s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r m u l a t i n g a n eco- nomic bill of r ights it does succeed in opening the d iscuss ion .

DAVID G E O R G E La Salle University

73