Many of my columns over the last eight months have endeavored to explain ideology and the different assumptions individuals hold about the correct level of government spending or taxation. On Monday morning I had the distinct pleasure of being part of the Citizen team who interviewed Adrian Dix and I heard him use the term "pre-distribution of wealth" in his answer to questions regarding equality. My ears perked up because I had seen this expression only the day before in a feature article on Mr. Dix in the Globe and Mail.
Justine Hunter had asked Dix, "How... does he plan to address issues that are fundamental to the [NDP], such as social and economic inequality?" She wrote, "His response is well honed, a careful distillation of complex research that (almost) fits in a sound bite: "There are two ways to address inequality. One is the redistribution of wealth, and the other is the pre-distribution of wealth." The latter is what he intends to emphasize - giving people better access to post-secondary education so they can lift themselves up. "You have to give people the power in their lives to achieve equality," he explains. "We have to address severe poverty, child poverty, but the idea that we can redistribute wealth through government policy is not the right direction" (Globe and Mail April 13, 2013).
I found this interesting because this is not really the generally accepted way that a social democrat would articulate the role of the state. The use of the term "pre-distribution of wealth" is a term we normally associate with a liberal (although not necessarily the Liberal Party). A social democrat would normally be concerned with a redistribution of wealth and with, what we call, "equality of result." Yet, the expression the "pre-distribution of wealth" is more often associated with "equality of opportunity" or, as he said, "...giv[ing] people the power in their lives to achieve equality."
When I explain this idea to my students I try to juxtapose these ideas of equality by drawing on the analogy of the "game of capitalism." Some argue that all we need to have a set of fair rules by which we play the game. This is called, "equality of right." From this stand-point, I can enter into the marketplace and get a job and get rich and make choices that will lead me to a self-determined life. We make our own choices and we are responsible for the consequences of those choices. This approach assumes that we are all able to enter the marketplace and that the barriers that prevent us from participating are barriers that we have to overcome individually. In fact, I wrote about this last week when I was discussing Margaret Thatcher's views on that state.
In the second view, individuals say that we can create more opportunity for individuals to participate in the market if we provide opportunities for them to overcome obstacles that may keep them from participating. So, just like Hunter described, this view asserts that, "[we] give people better access to post-secondary education so they can lift themselves up" or break down some of the barriers to participation. We create "equality of opportunity" if we assume that creating equality requires us to "level the playing field." We actively create a context in which individuals can succeed by "pre-distributing" wealth into public goods, like education.
Social democrats are generally more concerned with "equality of result." You might notice that neither "equality of right" nor "equality of opportunity appear to be concerned with where individuals "finish up" in the game. In fact both views can lead to a great variation in the distribution of wealth among citizens. Thus, those who advocate the "equality of result" want to redistribute the wealth more equally among citizens to ensure that individuals are not left destitute or disadvantaged by certain choices.
When Mr. Dix says, "the idea that we can redistribute wealth through government policy is not the right direction" he appears to be challenging the view of some social democrats who see "equality of result" as the measure of a successful state. I would argue that this is a well crafted policy approach that is meant to ease the fears of more right leaning individuals who anticipate a great swing of public policy if Mr. Dix becomes Premier.
