Critical Thinking Analysis of \"Equality

Critical Thinking analysis of "Equality and Efficiency" by Arthur Okun

Author Arthur Okun, in his book, "Equality and Efficiency," conceptually discussed the roots of equality and efficiency in the economic domain of human society. The author's main position is relayed earlier in his discussion, wherein he stated, "[e]conomic equality is obviously different from equality of opportunity" (3). In defending this position, he sought to discuss cases wherein equality does not necessarily translate to efficiency, while at the same time, creating a distinction between the concepts of 'economic equality' and 'equality of opportunity.'

While Okun's discussion centered on the relationship between equality and efficiency, his discussion and analysis of these concepts were characterized by fallacies, lack of scientific documentation and data support, and questionable conceptual and theoretical analyses. These fallacies and faulty analyses and discussion, in effect, resulted to questionable credibility and ability of the author to competently argue his main thesis in the book.

In the discussion and analyses of this paper, the researcher points out these 'loopholes' in Okun's arguments, citing specifically from passages and paraphrased discussions in the book. The analysis posits that Okun's assertions and arguments in supporting his analysis of the relationship between equality and efficiency was insufficient and ineffective because of the persistence of fallacies, lack of data support and questionable conceptual and theoretical analyses.

The so-called 'tradeoff' between equality and efficiency was based on the assumption that, according to Okun, in a society dominated by the capitalist economic system, it becomes inevitable that in achieving efficiency, there is a corresponding effect on the increasing gap between the "haves" and "have-nots." This is the natural state of economic dynamics within the capitalist framework, which he sought to prove in his succeeding discussions, relating these two essential concepts in specific economic plans implemented in the American economic history.

One of the most evident faults in his discussion and analysis of the relationship between equality and efficiency was his consistent avoidance of delving into the theoretical and conceptual roots of the issues surrounding the inefficiency problem. In Chapter 1, theoretical issues were left unanswered, wherein the author argued that these theoretical issues will not be covered or will not be the focus of his analysis. These issues included a 'survey' of the socio-demographic environment that may be considered as main factors or determinants of inefficiency and inequality in human society. Embedded in this faulty analysis is the fallacy of wishful thinking, wherein Okun stated how his purposeful choice to leave theoretical issues not discussed "merely reflects my choices, and I hope they are accepted as reasonably rational" (3).

Unanswered questions that were crucial to argue his point was not only the analytical fault found in Okun's discussion. Similarly, in Chapter 1, the following passage reflects this lack of elaboration from the author's part, leaving his readers dissatisfied with his discussion, thereby making his analysis incomplete as well, not to mention unconvincing (4):

society that is both democratic and capitalistic has a split-level institutional structure, and both levels need to be surveyed. When only the capitalistic level is inspected, issues concerning the distribution of material welfare are out of focus. In an economy that is based primarily on private enterprise, public efforts to promote equality represent a deliberate interference

This passage posed crucial questions from the reader, one of which is the determination of the terms "split-level institutional structure" and "capitalistic level" for better comprehension among readers, especially those who does not have any background in economics. Apart from this fault in Okun's conceptual framework, this passage also failed to capture the readers' understanding because the author failed to provide specific cases and examples to prove his argument.

Another problem in Okun's conceptualization of the equality-efficiency relationship is that he displayed lack of flexibility and open-mindedness in considering that the issue of rights as encompassing the economic sphere, and also includes the socio- political, cultural, and even historical roots from which human rights developed. This was evident when he claimed that "the domain of rights is full of infringements on the calculus of economic efficiency. Our rights can be viewed as inefficient..." (10). In this claim, Okun covered only one facet of the issue of rights, which is the economic aspect. There was no elaboration on the relationship of the economic sphere with the political, cultural, and historical roots of rights, as it relates to the individual and society. Establishing a relationship among these factors is crucial because this is not only inevitable, but a complete picture of rights (individual and collective) will provide readers a deeper understanding of the different dynamics surrounding the issue at hand.

Okun was also found to commit the fallacy of generalizing without sufficient support from data and secondary information. Chapter 2, wherein Okun cited economic policies implemented that were related to equality and efficiency, his claim on the issue of lobbying for specific issues concerning property rights were not supported by specific cases or data. By simply stating that there are "subtle dependencies" and "the wealthy can obtain undue political leverage," Okun failed to give clarity to these terms, and their relationship to the issue being discussed (27). In a similar manner, Okun failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his succeeding argument, which asserted that "Congress has realized that no single person speaks for the consumer" (29). This general statement did not have statistical data to prove this claim -- that indeed, a member or members of the Congress recognized this consumer problem.