IS FAIRNESS TOO EXPENSIVE?

Interview with Dr Angie Hobbs, Senior Fellow in the Public Understanding of Philosophy

Now that the Comprehensive Spending Review announcments have been made the question remains: are these measures fair?

What do we mean by fairness?

Fairness is an essentially contested concept - how should it be measured and how many factors should be taken into account? Do we need to worry about, for example, how fair the decisions we make now are for future generations? Do we need to question whether British economic and social policy is fair on the rest of the world?

We have been made well aware of the seriousness of the deficit and the vast amount of money that is being spent on paying off the interest on this debt. Implicit in these statements is the suggestion that we cannot really afford to abide by principles such as fairness at this time; we need to focus on growth and growth alone.

Interestingly George Osbourne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, has stated that he has two guiding principles - fairness and growth. In contrast, Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, set out that fairness - identified as social mobility - should be "the overriding principle". So what happens when the pursuit of growth clashes with the pursuit of fairness?

Dr Angie Hobbs, Senior Fellow in the Public Understanding of Philosophy, questions whether there is any justification to forget about fairness:

“It is incredibly dangerous to just forget about fairness because you get a society that says material wealth is the most important thing… the misguided belief that the acquisition of money was all important is exactly the value that resulted in bankers taking enormous risks with other people’s money.”

She recently spoke on the BBC's Today programme about her conception of fairness:

“For me, the most attractive interpretation is that each person is of equal worth and should have the opportunity - ideally, an equal opportunity - to access goods, but most of the goods themselves will be proportionally distributed, according to need in some cases and merit in others.”

Listen to Dr Angie Hobbs explain her views on the importance of fairness in anticipation of the CSR announcements on Wednesday 20th October.

Dr Angie Hobbs' response to Wednesday 20th October annoucements:

On Bankers: I maintain that it is manifestly unfair that bankers are not bearing more of the burden. There is clearly a tension between the defence of fairness and the consequentialist argument for the greatest good for the greatest number - I understand that without a buoyant banking sector normal working people would be in a worse position but the banks are using this implicitly as a threat. I personally would have liked to see more measures which recognise the part banks played in creating the deficit that the public sector now has to pay for.

On Universities: I agree that graduates should make a contribution to their education, but in my view the proposal of a 40% cut to teaching budgets to be picked up by graduates is too high. This is premised on the false assumption that they are the only ones benefitting from taking the degree course. The whole of society benefits massively from an educated workforce.

On the NHS: I am not convinced that it makes sense to ring fence the NHS. I value the health service greatly but I think savings could be made without effecting front line services for the sick and needy. I have heard political commentators from all political persuasions making that point.

On International Development: From the perspective of global fairness I think it is right that we are increasing the amount spent on international development. We have to accept that numerous problems that poorer countries have to deal with are partly caused by the lifestyles and and purchasing and trading practices of more affluent ones.

On the Next Generation: It is an uncomfortable truth that most members of the government are part of a privileged generation who got their university education for free. It seems that young people are going to take a harder hit. Given that we are spending over 100 million a day paying off interest on the debt we cannot burden the next generation with this, but overall I wonder if this takes full account of intergenerational fairness.

What do you think? Let us know by commenting below...