Equality, Merit, Need, and Rules: these are the considerations that come into play when allocating goodies. No one consideration applies to all situations. A brief overview:

Equality - The principle of equality comes in many flavors, e.g., equal before the law, equal access to state parks. But this post is about who gets what so we’re talking about equal distribution of resources. People often prefer equal distribution in groups when the goodies are seen as a “windfall” gain, such as Alaska or Indian tribes receiving a share of oil revenues. This preference is seen in toddlers across the world. For example, in several cross-cultural studies, young children tasked with divvying up “windfall” treats within a group preferred to distribute the goodies equally with the other children, as opposed to giving some children more than others. Humans, including very young ones, also prefer to divide rewards equally for collaborative efforts (e.g., team projects), possibly because the act of collaboration engenders a sense of ‘we’ that leads collaborative partners to consider each other as “equally deserving of the spoils” (Tomasello, 2019).

Merit - The preference for equal distribution falters, however, when some people do more than others to generate resources (Aarøe and Petersen, 2014). By “do more” I mean work harder and get better results. For example, both Norwegians and Americans are more likely to accept income inequality when provided evidence that effort and performance (i.e., merit) have led to unequal outcomes (Almas, Cappelen and Tungodden, 2019). One also sees this appreciation of merit in very young children across the world: five-year old children will not share group rewards with free riders (Tomasello 2019). So if little Sally just watched while the others worked for a group reward, the other children will not share the reward with her. Even toddlers exhibit a sense of distributive justice based on merit - that effort and the resources gained through effort confer a “right” to those resources. For example, three-year olds avoid taking objects effortfully obtained by a fellow toddler, even they could “get away with it” as when the other toddler has gone of the room for a while (Tomasello 2019).

Need - Cross-cultural studies have found that people generally agree the needy deserve some sort of help (van Oorschot and Roosma, (2017). Such generosity comes with qualifications, though. For example, individuals “seen as being personally responsible for their neediness are seen as less deserving (if at all)” (van Oorschot and Roosma, (2017). How much control the needy have over their circumstances, and whether these circumstances are so bad that charitable assistance is warranted are additional considerations. In lab studies, young children would not help a distressed child if her distress appears unjustified, such as crying over something trivial. They would only help when the distress seems justified by a clear cause (Tomasello 2019).

Rules - Laws, regulations, contracts, and social norms set out the rules for who gets what in which situations. Such rule-based resource allocation is a kind of “purely procedural justice” in which there is no other criterion for what constitutes a just outcome other than whatever the rules say (Rawls, 1999).  In other words, who gets what is not determined by egalitarian principles, merit, or need but by the rules. If there are agreed-upon rules, and resources are allocated unequally based on these rules, that’s okay. If corporate boards award CEOs outrageous compensation packages, so be it. If a person crashes his car the day after taking out insurance, insurance payout is fair because those are the rules. Of course, rules can be changed if deemed unfair. However, there is usually a rule-bound process for changing rules and just because the outcome of a rule occasionally seems unfair doesn’t mean the rule itself is the problem. Sometimes rich jerks win lotteries, but I doubt if lottery rules should be changed to exclude rich jerks from buying lottery tickets.

Political differences are often a matter of disagreements about inequality, need, merit, and rules. In general:

  • Progressives stress equal distribution, which requires them to prioritize equality, downplay merit, highlight the role of luck in life outcomes, and devalue some rules (e.g., legal protections for businesses).

  • Conservatives tend to stress the role of merit in life outcomes, which leads them to downplay luck.

  • Economic conservatives accept the rule that a seller is entitled to keep what he is paid in a legal transaction. That includes sellers of labor and expertise, such as CEOs and hedge fund managers.

  • Conservatives tend to frame commerce in terms of voluntary exchange between willing parties acting on self-interest, creating a rules-governed order (contracts, private property) where merit is rewarded and needs addressed.

  • Progressives are more likely to distrust business as morally suspect, a selfish pursuit of unfair advantage and power, manipulating consumers to desire things they don’t need and creating structural barriers to social mobility and equality.

  • Progressives are more likely than conservatives (both economic and social) to consider needs in terms of rights to government assistance.

  • Conservatives accept the right to government assistance in case of need but consider need more narrowly than progressives.

  • Conservatives often consider patriotism in the sense of “we are working together on a common project”. In other words, they link “we” with “working”. Hence, not much sympathy for free riders or those who are not working very hard on the common project.

  • Progressives are more likely to see “we” as humanity in general, not a particular group or nation working together on a common project. Humanity is more like a family, each member deserving of help when needed.

Political differences can’t be reduced to disagreements about equality, need, merit, and rules - but these essential disagreements do explain a lot.

—

* Nope, I didn’t answer the title’s question, “when to prioritize equality, merit, need, and rules”. The basic message is that it’s complicated and a lot depends on framing.

References:

Aarøe, Land Petersen, MB "Crowding Out Culture: Scandinavians and Americans Agree on Social Welfare in the Face of Deservingness Cues," The Journal of Politics 76, no. 3 (July 2014): 684-697.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161400019X

Almas, I; Cappelen, AW and Tungodden, B (2019), Cutthroat capitalism versus cuddly socialism: Are Americans more meritocratic and efficiency-seeking than Scandinavians, No 4/2019, Discussion Paper Series in Economics, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics

Petersen, MB, Slothuus, R, Stubager, R, and Togeby, L (2011) Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic. European Journal of Political Research, 50: 24-52.

Rawls, John “A Theory of Justice”, revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999.

Tomasello, Michael (2019) Becoming Human: A Theory of Ontogeny. Cambridge, MA, Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press

van Oorschot, W., & Roosma, F. (2017). The social legitimacy of targeted welfare and welfare deservingness. In W. van Oorschot, F. Roosma, B. Meuleman, & T. Reeskens (Eds.), The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes on welfare deservingness (pp. 3-35). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0795/8cccee9173be1b4e8c4206ea89722bda895b.pdf