Equity
There was a policy conflict in the 2004 federal election campaign that I was a little surprised no one picked up.
Mark Latham announced a health policy and an education policy that had different and conflicting equity goals. Yet both were argued for by Labor on the basis they would promote fairness and equity. For health, Latham argued the government should fund all Australians regardless of their capacity to pay for health services. For education, he argued the government should fund according to need, taking direct account of the capacity of individuals to pay for private education services.
It was a minor nuance, but it reminded me of a chapter in one of my all-time-favourite books on policy: Deborah A Stone’s Policy Paradox and Political Reason, published by Harper Collins Publishers in 1988.
Stone makes the observation that the fair and equitable distribution of goods and services, wealth and income, and opportunity and disadvantage are at the heart of all public policy controversies. Every policy issue involves the distribution of something. Debates on equity and fairness are especially rampant in the area of social policy.
To exemplify the problem with defining equity, Stone imagines that she has a delicious bittersweet chocolate cake that she will distribute equally to her students. The obvious solution is to count the students, cut the cake into that number of equal sized portions, and then pass the slices out. However, not everyone agreed with Stone’s definition of equity. Briefly, the objections were as follows.
First, some said it was unfair to the students who did not attend the class. Those who skipped the class and those who did not take the class (but would have had they known cake would be provided) claim that her approach involved equal slices but unequal invitations.
Second, after the class, when Stone returned to the faculty staff room, she was assailed by her colleagues who argued that in future her cake should be distributed according to the structure of the department:
Undergraduate students: crumbs
Postgraduate students: a single mouthful
Tutors: slivers
Lecturers: wedges
Professors: wedges with extra frosting
Dean of Faculty: wedge with extra frosting and a linen napkin
This solution might be described as unequal slices for unequal ranks, but equal slices for equal ranks.
Third, the male students in the class staged a protest. They argued that women have always had greater access to chocolate cake than men. Girls are taught to bake where as boys are forced to play football. Furthermore, cake is more likely to be served in classes taught by women, and proportionately more women attend such classes. The men insist future cakes should first be divided in half, and then the men (who make up a third of the class), share one half and the women can share the other half. Unequal slices but equal blocks.
Fourth, some of the students noted that they had just had lunch together immediately before the class, but they had not had dessert. During the lunch some students had two prawn cocktails while others got none. These students suggested it would be equitable if those who did not get a prawn cocktail got a larger slice of the chocolate cake. This solution might be called unequal slices but equal meals.
Fifth, some students said they did not have the crucial gene to metabolise chocolate. While they wanted to taste the cake, they thought it better if they only got a small slice, while the others who could fully appreciate the cake got a big slice. Unequal slices but equal value.
Sixth, the jocks in the class did not want complicated solutions. They suggested that everyone should be given a fork and allowed to go for it. Unequal slices (hunks) but equal starting resources.
Seventh, a maths whiz proposed that the cake should not be divided. Rather he proposed that everyone’s name should be put in a hat, one name should be drawn at random, and the winner should be given the whole cake. Unequal slices but equal statistical chances.
Finally, the political science students in the class suggested that there should be an election for the official position of cake eater. The only fair way to decide who eats the cake is to give everyone a vote. They wanted unequal slices but equal votes.
Yes, as an example, it is a little far fetched. Yet, across the spectrum of policy problems in Australia each of these definitions of fairness and equity is used.
There are many examples where it is argued that equality does not mean the same slice for everyone, but the equality of something else. Few argue that it is fair for all workers to be paid the same hourly wage, regardless of the type of work they do. Most Australians readily accept the notion of unequal salaries for different jobs. Few would disagree that surgeons should be paid more than street sweeps.
Similarly, few of us believe that everyone should be taxed the same amount, regardless of out income or capacity to pay. Or that the government should fund education at the same flat per student rate for every student regardless of the school the student attends and regardless of the parent’s capacity to contribute to the cost of their child’s schooling.
As Stone notes, there are always several defensible but competing views of the single policy goal of equity. Simple prescriptions such as “equal opportunity for all” or “treat like cases alike” are glib slogans that mask the dilemmas of distributive justice.