Content area
Full Text
1. Introduction
Is Adam Smith an egalitarian? Does he favour equality? These questions are not easily answered because “egalitarian” and “equality” have diverse meanings[1]. Many commentators agree that Smith is a moral egalitarian, who prioritizes moral impartiality and the equality of human dignity (Darwall, 1999; Griswold, 1999; Rothschild, 2001; Fleischacker, 2004a, b, 2013; Debes, 2012). Smith is also an egalitarian of natural talents (Peart and Levy, 2005, 2008)[2] and, no doubt, a legal egalitarian, who supports equality under the law and equality of civil rights. In addition, he is a considerable gender egalitarian, who criticizes gender inequality in laws and politics[3].
However, commentators disagree significantly about whether Smith is an economic egalitarian, that is, whether he supports the equality of income distribution. It is difficult to be certain about this because Smith expresses at least four distinct views on the subject, in two of which he approves of economic inequality, whereas in the other two, he does not. Commentators’ conclusions regarding this issue tend to reflect which of Smith’s views they prioritize. To understand Smith’s complete position, we must isolate and consider these four views carefully. They are examined fully in Sections 2-6 and are summarized as follows.
First, Smith endorses the income inequality between industrious and idle labourers because it incentivises diligence. Thus, he regards piecework as more desirable than fixed wages. Smith does not agree with equality of outcome in the sense that all labourers should receive an equal wage, regardless of the degree of diligence.
Second, Smith prefers an unequal and opulent civilized society to an equal and poor primitive society. He acknowledges that incomes are distributed neither fairly nor equally in a civilized society, where rewards are often inversely proportional to labour. Even so, those occupying a civilized society’s lowest level are much better off than those at the top of a primitive society. This opulence or prosperity of a civilized society is caused by increased labour productivity through the division of labour. This second view has been the most important reason for the anti-egalitarian interpretations of Smith (Hont and Ignatieff, 1983; Muller, 2006; Aspromourgos, 2010). However, it appears that commentators who regard Smith as an egalitarian have not refuted the anti-egalitarian interpretations with sufficient conviction. To interpret Smith as a coherent...