Raising vs. Leveling in the Social Organization of Welfare

Originally published in Review of Law and Economics

This paper contrasts raising and leveling as alternative conceptual frameworks regarding the social organization of welfare. There is good reason to think that genuinely competitive federalism offers a sounder institutional framework for the promotion of raising than can redistribution through a central government, mostly because the knowledge that is required for a program of raising is distributed and incapable of meaningful summarization through aggregation.

This paper contrasts raising and leveling as alternative conceptual frameworks regarding the social organization of welfare. At least since Richard Musgrave’s (1959) tripartite organization of the theory of public finance, most fiscal scholars have treated the redistributive activities of governments as necessarily belonging to the national level of government. More significantly perhaps, that literature has treated the problem of promoting welfare as one of leveling incomes through programs of taxing-and-transferring. In contrast, this paper treats the problem of promoting welfare as one of raising incomes. This alternative formulation leads, in turn, to an alternative orientation toward the relationship between federalism and welfare. In particular, there is good reason to think that genuinely competitive federalism offers a sounder institutional framework for the promotion of raising than can redistribution through a central government, mostly because the knowledge that is required for a program of raising is distributed and incapable of meaningful summarization through aggregation.

Read the paper at Berkeley Electronic Press.

Citation: Wagner, Richard E. (2010) "Raising vs. Leveling in the Social Organization of Welfare," Review of Law & Economics: Vol. 6: Iss. 3, Article 6.

To speak with a scholar or learn more on this topic, visit our contact page.