Should Wealth Be Redistributed?

A Debate

Steven McMullen, James R. Otteson

$263

Hardback

Not in-store but you can order this
How long will it take?

Availability Information

We source books from suppliers in Australia and overseas. For books we don't currently have in stock, the time it takes to get them from our suppliers can vary widely - from a few days to a few months - so we check each book with each supplier to determine the expected time it will take to be supplied to us.

We then advise you accordingly. If the time taken to get any book is too long for you, you can let us know and we will cancel or adjust your order, and refund as required.

To find out the anticipated arrival time for specific items prior to ordering, please contact us by phone or email:

Phone +61 2 9264 3111, or 1800 4 BOOKS (1800 4 26657) if outside Sydney:
option 1 Abbey's Bookshop (Crime, History, Science, Kids & more) • info@abbeys.com.au
option 2 Language Book Centre (ESL & Foreign Languages) • language@abbeys.com.au
option 3 Galaxy Bookshop (Sci-fi, Fantasy, Romance, Graphic Novels) • sf@galaxybooks.com.au

QTY:

English

Routledge
20 December 2022

Ethics & moral philosophy; Social discrimination; Social groups; Sociology; Political economy

Series: Little Debates about Big Questions

A central contested issue in contemporary economics and political philosophy is whether governments should redistribute wealth. In this book, a philosopher and an economist debate this question. James Otteson argues that respect for individual persons requires that the government should usually not alter the results of free exchanges, and so redistribution is usually wrong. Steven McMullen argues that governments should substantially redistribute wealth in order to ensure that all have a minimal opportunity to participate in economic life. Over the course of the exchange, the authors investigate a number of important questions. Is redistribution properly a question of justice, and what is the appropriate standard? Has the welfare state been effective at fighting poverty? Can we expect government intervention in the economy to be helpful or counterproductive? Are our obligations to help the poor best met through government action, or through private philanthropy and individual charity?

The book features clear statements of each argument, responses to counterarguments, in-text definitions, a glossary of key terms, and section summaries. Scholars and students alike will find it easy to follow the debate and learn the key concepts from philosophy, politics, and economics necessary to understand each position.

Key Features:

Offers clear arguments written to be accessible to readers and students without a deep background in economics, philosophy, or political theory. Fosters a deep exchange of ideas with responses from each author to the main arguments. Provides in-text definitions and a glossary with definitions of key terms. Includes section summaries that give an overview of the main arguments and a comprehensive bibliography for further reading.

By: Steven McMullen, James R. Otteson
Imprint: Routledge
Country of Publication: United Kingdom
Dimensions: Height: 216mm, Width: 138mm,
Weight: 710g
ISBN: 9780367426637
ISBN 10: 0367426633
Series: Little Debates about Big Questions
Pages: 278
Publication Date: 20 December 2022
Audience: General/trade , ELT Advanced
Format: Hardback
Publisher's Status: Active

Steven McMullen is Associate Professor of Economics at Hope College and Executive Editor of the journal Faith & Economics. He is the author of Animals and the Economy (2016) and Digital Life Together: The Challenge of Technology for Christian Schools (2020). James R. Otteson is John T. Ryan Jr. Professor of Business Ethics, and Faculty Director of the Notre Dame Deloitte Center for Ethical Leadership, Business Honors Program, and Business Ethics and Society Program, at the University of Notre Dame. His most recent books are Honorable Business (2019) and Seven Deadly Economic Sins (2021).

Reviews for Should Wealth Be Redistributed?: A Debate

Both McMullen and Otteson are adept at navigating the ethical and moral arguments in the abstract, but each is willing to take seriously the problems of implementation and practical consequence. I enjoyed the discussion, and I expect that you will also. Michael Munger, Duke University (from the Foreword)