The children left behind - Innocenti Research Centre

2 4 I n n o c e n t i R e p o r t C a r d 9
Box 3 The just society: a measure
The statistics presented in this Report Card can also
be read as a first attempt to measure nations by the
standards of a ‘just society’ as defined by the American
political philosopher John Rawls (1921 – 2002).
Rawls proposed that the just society would be one in
which the rules were drawn up for the benefit of society
as a whole. To achieve this, he argued, the starting point
should be ‘the original position’. By this he meant a kind
of celestial ante-room in which all those waiting to be
born would draw up the rules without knowing what
position in society they themselves would occupy.
From behind this ‘veil of ignorance’, the rule-makers
would not know whether they would be born rich or
poor, male or female, with above or below average
talents, fit or disabled, part of an ethnic minority or part
of a privileged elite.
Because we would not know about our own status,
he argued, we would not be able to press for rules that
would benefit only ourselves. Rules drawn up on this
basis, therefore, would reflect an equal concern for all
classes and groups.
The ‘veil of ignorance’ is therefore designed to tame
the power of vested interests. And ‘the original position’
is the exact opposite of the interest group model that is
so influential in today’s politics. In essence, it is similar
to the method of sharing a cake fairly between two
people by inviting one person to make the cut and the
other to take first choice.
Rawls has his critics among the hundreds who have
written books in response to his ideas. Libertarians
have objected that basic human rights such as property
rights and the right to self-ownership leave no room for
a Rawlsian concept of the ‘just society’. Ronald Dworkin
has argued that hypothetical agreements about rules
drawn up from ‘the original position’ are not real
agreements and therefore could not find the necessary
acceptance and authority. Amartya Sen finds the same
weakness, adding that unanimity would be unlikely to
be achieved even from ‘the original position’ and that
lack of unanimity would bring the Rawlsian thesis
crashing down. Uniting some of these criticisms,
Michael Sandel has objected that decisions about the
rules governing communities that have their own
traditions and histories cannot be made by reasoning
from a rootless and historically abstract position.
But the idea that the rules of society should reflect
the interests of all, and not just its dominant members,
is widely accepted in theory, even if the methods by
which it might be achieved remain controversial.
If we assume that the end, if not the means,
commands a measure of agreement, then one way of
measuring progress towards the aim of a just society
would be to measure the degree of disadvantage
suffered by its most disadvantaged members. That is
what this Report Card attempts to do.
Clearly, more comprehensive data would be required
to measure degrees of disadvantage ‘in the round’,
especially if, as Amartya Sen suggests, disadvantage
should be defined as “those who are least able to
realise their potential and develop and exercise their
capabilities.”
Nonetheless, the data presented in these pages
represent a contribution to that process. In three
different dimensions of well-being – material goods,
educational level, and health – they show how far
behind the median level the least advantaged are
being allowed to fall. And the fact that different
countries show very different patterns indicates that
some countries are making more progress than others
towards ‘the just society’.