Notes to Submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into the ...

concerned. Thus, it could be argued that in general the impossibility of comparingidiosyncratic and unpredictable personal tastes across individuals makes anythingstronger than a Pareto criterion impractical - but the argument is not strong insofar as it iseasier to compare needs by objectively measurable impairments. Similarly, one couldargue that in relatively developed economies, subsistence is not an issue for most people,and therefore the distinction between primary and secondary needs/goods is notmeaningful - but the argument is not strong insofar as people with impairments need acritical minimum of primary goods in order to be able to function. Finally, it could beargued that consumption and production is separable for most people who have access toprimary goods and for whom the social and built infrastructure is relatively seamless - butthe argument is not strong insofar as people with impairments who are excluded fromschooling, travel, buildings and communication are concerned by an inaccessibleinfrastructure and poverty.Implications• Development involves expanding the freedoms enjoyed by individuals andremoving the sources of unfreedoms such as poverty and poor economicopportunity. Impairments may be seen as a source of unfreedoms due to itsrestrictive nature on individual functioning. If so, then development in thiscontext involves alleviating or removing disability while promoting capabilities. 11• Recognition of impairment and the ensuing poverty implies that there is a priorordering of wants as between primary wants to satisfy the ability to function andsecondary wants which satisfy tastes, and that increased well-being involvesallocating resources in such a way that some sort of priority is given to primarywants. The economic case for minimalist government assumes these issues awayand is therefore not as general as is sometimes supposed.• The Rawlsian argument for greater income equality consistent with maximumpersonal liberties also has weaknesses when confronted with impairment. Itappears to account for impairment in its argument that society is better off onlywhen individuals with the lowest income are made better off, but its prescriptionsappear to go both too far and not far enough. The Rawls logic ‘over-redistributes’insofar as it assumes that individuals behind the ‘veil of ignorance’ are highlyrisk. To the extent that they might love risk, they might not contract to redistributeincome to low-income individuals with impairments and in extreme cases mayseek to let them die as is done in social contracts in some primitive pre-industrialeconomies. On the other hand, Rawls under-redistributes insofar as even forhighly risk averse individuals, income equality does not guarantee that individualswith impairments will have that threshold of primary goods that would enablethem to undertake the various functions necessary for well-being.• The Sen-Nussbaum capabilities approach:o provides an alternative criterion (ensuring satisfaction of primary needs) tothe Pareto criterion (ensuring a state where no individual’s position isimproved except at the expense of another individual)11 Welch15