Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T10:46:51.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inequality: What Can Be Done?Anthony B. Atkinson. Harvard University Press, 2015, ix + 384 pages.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2016

Carina Fourie
Carina Fourie*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Savery Hall Room 361, University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195, USA. Email: fourie@uw.edu. URL: https://phil.washington.edu/people/carina-fourie.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 366 - 373
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arneson, R. 2011. Luck egalitarianism – a primer. In Responsibility and Distributive Justice, ed. Knight, C. and Stemplowska, Z., 24–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourie, C., Schuppert, F. and Wallimann-Helmer, I.. (ed.) 2015. Social Equality: On What It Means to Be Equals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, H. G. 1987. Equality as a moral ideal. Ethics 98: 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, H. G. 2015. On Inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. 2012. Democratic egalitarianism versus luck egalitarianism: what is at stake? Philosophical Topics 40: 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D. 1997. Equality and priority. Ratio 10: 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar