Bertrand de Jouvenel’s book, The Ethics of Redistribution, is aptly summed up by the quotation on its back cover which reads: “The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.” Jouvenel’s insightful reasoning, which inevitably leads to this conclusion, is what makes the book a powerful lesson on the more subtle impacts of taxation and redistribution. While Jouvenel’s reasoning was occasionally less than transparent and demanded some thought, these moments were overshadowed by the generally lucid and shrewd tone of the book. Indeed, the book, a mere 91 pages, appendix included, offers a substantial bang for its buck in terms of intellectual depth.

Jouvenel begins with the ideas that gave birth to redistributionist ideas, and the origins of socialist ideals, which he claims are flawed with inherent contradictions. He moves on to a discussion of redistribution, where he focuses on its moral ramifications and makes the somewhat unrealistic assumption that redistribution could be achieved without negatively affecting production or long-term economic incentives. Indeed, Jouvenel’s focus on the ethics of redistribution sets his work apart from others, which, for the most part, seem to focus on the feasibility of redistribution. Jouvenel assumes redistribution is feasible and asks: What are the implications of such a system?

Perhaps the most troubling result of redistribution is the alarming growth of the State’s influence and power. For example, with the reduction, or rather elimination, of personal discretionary income and correspondingly of personal liberty, one would find a reduction, if not an absence, of all of the discretionary products of society. In other words, there would be no wealthy donor to support a play or art exhibit, and indeed, if such spending were to exist in a redistributionist state, it would have to come from the State. Thus the State “finances cultural activities and must thenceforth choose which it supports.” In this small example, one clearly sees the shift of power and responsibility from the individual to the state. A broad implication of increased State control of spending is a limitation of volunteer services as more and more services come into the fold of public service. Thus the benefit of truly free services to the community is lost as a volunteer at a food bank is replaced by a professional in the pay of the State. Jouvenel notes that “services which are paid for in bulk by taxation are not freely given” and points to the salary of the state-supported workers as an indication of the costs associated with such “free” public services.

Jouvenel points out that stripping individuals of discretionary income more or less renders them ineffective in opposing the measures of the State. As the State secures control of individuals discretionary spending, a new class of elites responsible for the distribution of these funds must arise, and Jouvenel aptly points out that “a mass of passive citizens” is no match for “a class of public managers.” In other words, Jouvenel notes, as Friedrich Hayek does in his book The Road to Serfdom, that redistribution necessitates that power be centralized in a way which easily accommodates the development of tyranny. Jouvenel suggests such a state essentially strips the citizens of their role as citizens, noting that “the taxpayers’ front was then a bulwark of individual freedom and the cornerstone of political liberty.”

Redistribution gained momentum as society became wealthier and there was a shift from the past where “riches had been a scandal in the face of poverty,” to the present where “poverty was a scandal in the face of riches.” Redistribution had broad appeal because few people were willing to object to, for example, the idea of taking money from the rich man who “wastes” money gambling at a horse track to feed a poverty stricken family. Jouvenel shows that redistribution of income to a common equal income or range of incomes would require cutting well into the incomes of the lower middle class. Jouvenel uses British taxation records for 1947-48 to roughly estimate that income equalization would require an income ceiling of 500 pounds, or approximately $23,000 in today’s US dollar. Nonetheless the redistribution of incomes is often justified using the theory of diminishing returns as applied to money, which suggests that the poor man gains more satisfaction from an additional dollar than a rich man loses from the loss of a dollar. However, as Jouvenel points out, “satisfactions of different persons cannot be measured with a common rod.”

Another interesting result of income equalization is discrimination against groups with unique tastes and preferences. As Jouvenel puts it, discrimination against minority groups “is a regular feature of any economic society. People of uncommon tastes are at a disadvantage for the satisfaction of their wants, so they endeavor to raise their incomes in order to pay for their distinctive wants.” Jouvenel suggests that this discrimination results in four consequences: “personal hardship for individuals of original tastes…the loss to society of the special effort these people would make in order to satisfy their special needs…the loss to society of the variety in ways of life resulting from successful efforts to satisfy specials wants…[and]…the loss to society of those activities which are supported by minority demands.” Most damaging is the loss of activities supported by minorities which have historically led to innovations benefiting all of society. Jouvenel supports this with the example of salt and other spices which were rare commodities in the past but eventually became widely distributed goods. Modern day examples may include solar power, hybrid cars, and organic food.

In short, Jouvenel questions the seemingly noble aims of redistribution with the strong argument that there is a loss of personal liberty. He discusses other points which are not included in this review, so challenge yourself and your assumptions about income redistribution by reading this excellent little book.

“The so-called Dark Ages began with the flight of individuals into the protection of lords or chapters and came to an end when the individual again found it to his advantage to set forth on his own.”

Bertrand de Jouvenel, the author of The Ethics of Redistribution.