Combating Inequality

a high evidentiary threshold also restricts us to the margins of existing policies and
small scale changes. We necessarily have good evidence only on policies that have been tried.

Do we seek a gradual evolution of our policies or a more wholesale revolution? This is perhaps at least as much a question of temperament as of economics.

Do we only pursue policies for which there is good evidence, or are we willing to be bolder and to experiment?

A Rawlsian perspective (advocated by both Scanlon and Van Parijs) would lead us to demand that any increase in inequality must improve the well-being of the worst off in society.

what we want to do about inequality must start with answering the following questions: What is wrong with it?

Do we want to reduce inequality because its consequences are bad or because it is bad in itself?

We need a policy environment that directly targets the creation of good jobs.

These are also the kinds of jobs that are most at risk with the spread of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, digitalization, and automation.

The literature on the drivers of authoritarian populism makes it clear that the scarcity of good jobs and the economic anxieties that accompany it have played a substantial role in the rise of the Far Right.

One of the themes that emerged from our conference is the importance of policies that tackle the middle of the income distribution—in particular, policies that support the expansion of middle-class, or “good,” jobs.