Equality of What? Welfare, Resources, and Capability
Introduction
The question “Equality of What?” represents one of the most important debates in modern political theory. While most political theorists agree that equality is a fundamental value, there is deep disagreement about what exactly should be equalized in a just society. Should equality be understood in terms of welfare, resources, or human capabilities? This question was famously articulated by Amartya Sen, who argued that debates on equality often suffer from conceptual confusion by assuming agreement on the object of equality.
This debate lies at the heart of contemporary political theory and has direct implications for distributive justice, social policy, and democratic governance. In the Delhi University MA Political Science curriculum, this topic is crucial because it allows students to critically compare different models of equality and understand their normative foundations and practical consequences.
Conceptual Background: Equality in Political Theory
Equality has been a central concern of political thought since classical antiquity, but modern political theory has given it a distinctly normative and distributive focus. Liberal egalitarianism, socialism, and welfare economics all endorse equality in some form, yet they diverge significantly in defining its content.
Traditional egalitarian arguments often equated equality with equal treatment or equal outcomes. However, as political theory evolved, scholars recognized that equal treatment may perpetuate injustice when individuals start from unequal social positions. This realization led to the development of more sophisticated theories that asked not whether equality is desirable, but what should be equalized to achieve justice.
Equality of Welfare
One influential answer to the question of equality is equality of welfare, which holds that justice requires an equal distribution of individual well-being or satisfaction. Welfare is usually understood in utilitarian terms, referring to happiness, pleasure, or preference satisfaction.
Supporters of this view argue that resources and rights are valuable only insofar as they contribute to human welfare. If individuals have equal levels of welfare, then inequalities in income or resources may be morally acceptable. This approach has been influential in welfare economics and utilitarian political theory.
However, equality of welfare faces significant challenges. One major criticism is that welfare is subjective and adaptive. Individuals who suffer long-term deprivation may adjust their preferences downward, reporting satisfaction despite severe injustice. As Sen argues, relying on welfare alone risks legitimizing inequality by ignoring objective deprivation and structural disadvantage.
Equality of Resources
A prominent alternative to welfare-based equality is equality of resources, most notably developed by Ronald Dworkin. According to this view, justice requires that individuals have equal access to resources with which they can pursue their own conception of the good life.
Dworkin distinguishes between inequalities arising from choice and those arising from circumstance. While individuals should bear responsibility for outcomes resulting from their voluntary choices, inequalities caused by brute luck—such as disability or social background—should be compensated. Equality of resources thus aims to respect individual responsibility while maintaining fairness.
Despite its strengths, this approach has limitations. Critics argue that equal resources do not guarantee equal opportunities, as individuals differ in their ability to convert resources into valuable outcomes. A person with a disability may require more resources to achieve the same level of functioning as others, a problem that resource egalitarianism struggles to address adequately.
Equality of Capability
The capability approach, developed by Amartya Sen, offers a more comprehensive answer to the question of equality. Sen argues that equality should be assessed in terms of people’s capabilities—their real freedoms to achieve valuable ways of living.
Capabilities refer to the genuine opportunities individuals have to achieve functionings, such as being healthy, educated, politically active, and socially included. This approach shifts the focus from means (welfare or resources) to actual freedom. Two individuals with the same income or resources may have vastly different capabilities due to health, gender, social norms, or political conditions.
Sen deliberately avoids providing a fixed list of capabilities, emphasizing democratic deliberation and contextual evaluation. This flexibility allows the capability approach to address diverse social realities, but it also attracts criticism for being difficult to operationalize in policy design.
Comparative Analysis: Welfare, Resources, and Capability
The debate between welfare, resources, and capability highlights different understandings of human equality. Welfare-based equality prioritizes subjective well-being, resource-based equality emphasizes fair means, and capability-based equality focuses on substantive freedom.
While welfare equality risks ignoring structural injustice, resource equality may overlook personal diversity. The capability approach seeks to overcome these limitations by accounting for both individual differences and social conditions. However, its openness and lack of precise metrics remain points of contention.
This comparative debate demonstrates that equality is not a single concept but a normative framework shaped by moral priorities and political values.
Criticism and Counter-Criticism
Each approach to equality has been subject to criticism. Equality of welfare is criticized for its subjectivity and vulnerability to adaptive preferences. Equality of resources is challenged for insufficient sensitivity to individual needs and disabilities. The capability approach is often criticized for its indeterminacy and reliance on normative judgment.
In response, defenders of the capability approach argue that justice cannot be reduced to a mechanical formula. They contend that democratic reasoning and public debate are essential to determining which capabilities matter in a given society. This response aligns equality with participatory democracy and political legitimacy.
Contemporary Relevance
The debate over “Equality of What?” remains highly relevant in contemporary politics. Issues such as poverty, gender inequality, disability rights, and access to healthcare cannot be adequately addressed by focusing solely on income or welfare. Capability-based assessments are increasingly used in development policy, most notably in the Human Development Index (HDI).
In political theory, this debate continues to inform discussions on social justice, human rights, and global inequality, making it a core topic in Debates in Political Theory.
Conclusion
The question “Equality of What?” reveals the complexity of egalitarian justice. While welfare and resources offer important insights, they fail to capture the full range of human freedom and diversity. The capability approach provides a more nuanced and ethically robust framework by focusing on what people are genuinely able to do and be. As such, it represents one of the most significant contributions to contemporary political theory.
Suggested Readings
- Amartya Sen, Equality of What?
- Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom
- Ronald Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue
- Martha Nussbaum, Women and Human Development
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Egalitarianism”
FAQs
Q1. What does Amartya Sen mean by “Equality of What?”
Sen argues that equality debates must specify what is being equalized, as different metrics lead to different conceptions of justice.
Q2. Why is equality of welfare problematic?
Because welfare is subjective and affected by adaptive preferences, it may conceal real deprivation.
Q3. How does equality of resources differ from equality of welfare?
Resource equality focuses on fair distribution of means rather than outcomes or satisfaction.
Q4. What are capabilities in Sen’s theory?
Capabilities are real opportunities to achieve valuable functionings.
Q5. Why does Sen reject a fixed list of capabilities?
To allow democratic deliberation and contextual determination of justice.
Q6. Why is this debate important for DU exams?
It tests conceptual clarity, comparative analysis, and contemporary relevance.
