Enough (For The)
Refugees
Distributive Justice and the Accommodation of Refugees in
the Netherlands
Thesis Global Justice – Political Science Name: Matthieu Huijser
Student number: 10180427 Supervisor: Enzo Rossi
Index
Introduction p. 3
Chapter I: Refugees, Citizens and The Government p. 11
Chapter II: Within Egalitarianism: Equality, Priority and Sufficiency p. 19
Chapter III: Equality, Priority and Sufficiency as a
Distribution Policy p. 36
Conclusion p. 50
Abstract: In this thesis I have discussed the following question: ‘Which theory of egalitarian justice should inform the
Dutch government to make a just distribution of refugees in the Netherlands?’ To answer this question I have looked at the interests of the involved stakeholders in the policy process (refugees, the community and the government) and defined the most important distribution criteria. After discussing the main egalitarian theories in distributive justice (equality, priority and sufficiency), the interests of the stakeholders are linked to these theories in the last chapter. In this last chapter I argue for a sufficiency-‐doctrine in the distribution of refugees, because it looks after the interests of the refugees and the community, in a so-‐called two-‐folded sufficiency threshold.
Introduction
In this thesis I will discuss how an egalitarian framework of sufficiency can offer a just distribution of refugees. How refugees should be distributed in a just way, implies that there is a need for an equal concern for all involved stakeholders. The three most important affected stakeholders in the policy around the distribution of refugees in the Netherlands are the refugees, the surrounding community and the government. All these stakeholders are affected in some way by the distribution of refugees in the Netherlands. The focus of this thesis will be on the costs to society, when distributing refugees among municipalities in the Netherlands. It is important that the interests of society and refugees are taking into consideration when developing a fair distribution policy. But, concerning all the different stakeholders and conflicting interests, it is important to examine the relationship between distributive justice and equality first.
The research question of this thesis is as follows:
Which theory of egalitarian justice should inform the Dutch government to make a just distribution of refugees in the Netherlands?
John Rawls’ argument to develop his Theory of Justice was to make a basic structure that looks at the benefits and burdens of the society and how the institutions should distribute these in a just way (Rawls, 1979: 4). While Rawls constructs his theory around the distributive justice of resources, this thesis focuses on the distributive justice of distributing refugees in the Netherlands. The distribution policy of refugees should be concerned with the interests of refugees and the interests of the municipalities. In the third chapter I will argue
for a sufficiency-‐framework that looks after the interests of both stakeholders in the distribution policy.
The societal relevance of this thesis seems evident. The refugees are
increasing due wars in the Middle East and Africa and they need to be
distributed and be given a safe place. The Dutch government is given the task from the European Union to harbour these refugees. This distribution process can cause a lot of commotion in society as Dutch media channels like GeenStijl and Pownews have taken notice of (Pownews, 2016). One of the most salient incidents was in the Dutch village Oss, where a neighbourhood demonstrated against the placement of four refugees. The residents threw bricks through the intended houses for the refugees and argued that the refugees could be a new source of pollution in their neighbourhood. Oss is not the only municipality where these sentiments are present. Before looking at a framework of a fair distribution over the different municipalities, it is important to understand the current positions of the involved stakeholders. The three most important stakeholders in this process, the government, refugees and the community, all want a say in this policy process. It is important that the government develops a just and fair policy that minimizes the costs for society and looks after the needs of refugees.
This thesis will also contribute to the scientific debate around the
different views on refugees and the relationship between distributive justice and refugees. A lot of debates on refugees and immigration are focused on the free movement of people and the discussion about open borders. This thesis looks at the bridge between philosophy and policy on the national level and the
relationship of practical policy and scientific theories. Besides the coming together of theory and practice, it looks at the consequences of an egalitarian perspective on policy. The relationship between the use of philosophy (or political theory) in practice, is important for an understanding of justice and fairness in society and how philosophy can be useful in these policy processes.
One can argue that the distribution of refugees has nothing to do with
distributive justice, but is more a case of humanitarian or procedural justice. Although these theories about justice can offer valuable insight in the discussion about the current situation of refugees in Europe, this thesis focuses on
distributive justice. When the humanitarian justice perspective would be applied to the case of the refugees, the thesis would focus more on the shortcomings and bad circumstances of the refugees in the Netherlands and how this should be modified. When one argues for more procedural justice, the perspective would look at the legitimacy of the governmental policy and the democratic process that comes along with it. Both forms of justice are valuable and worth studying when looking at the situation of refugees in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, this thesis looks at the importance of a fair distribution of refugees over the society and as a consequence, the costs that have to be shared equally. Distributive justice looks at the fairness of distribution and it is in this case the best applicable form of justice.
There are various perspectives on distributive justice and within
distributive justice there is a classic contrast between egalitarianism and libertarianism. Traditionally, the egalitarian favours more governmental
intervention than the libertarian and the libertarian focuses more on individual liberty than an egalitarian distribution. An example of a libertarian theory within distributive justice is the entitlement theory of Robert Nozick (1974). In his theory Nozick argues for a minimal state where people respect each other’s individual property (Nozick, 1974: 150). Nozick offers valuable arguments in the debate of distributive justice to use a libertarian approach, but for the Dutch case it would make more sense to take on a more ‘Rawlsian’, egalitarian perspective. The Dutch governmental system is classified in such a way that there is a
framework of western liberal institutions and the democratic process is built upon compromise and consensus.
In a survey of the SCP (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau), citizens argue that they value both equality and freedom as important concepts in a democratic system. As a fact, Dutch citizens see democracy, freedom and equality as the binding values in Dutch society (SCP, 2016: 4). Both doctrines could be applicable to the Dutch case, as both perspectives are seen as binding values. Nevertheless, citizens see compromise and consensus as the most important components in the Dutch democracy (SCP, 2015: 29). These values resonate better with egalitarianism than libertarianism. Further in the introduction I will elaborate on the different positions within egalitarianism.
One thing that should be noted beforehand is that it can be tricky to talk about refugees as a means of distribution. But, it should not be ignored that refugees put a burden on the resources of society, as they need a place to stay; they need food and have to look for jobs. The Ministry of Justice, who have take in the costs of refugees in their budget, estimate the costs of a refugee on 4.000 euro’s. Some municipalities have already complained that they need more money, 8.000 per refugee, to let refugees integrate in society (De Volkskrant, 2016) The Dutch government says they want to minimize the costs for society, but the policy should be based on the notion of justice (convenant verhoogde asielinstroom, 2015). This means that the interests of the refugees should be taken seriously, but it is inevitable that refugees cost something. The question of distributive justice is how to distribute these costs over the society. As the perspective on justice from this paper is egalitarian, the refugees ought to be distributed equally over the Netherlands, without losing sight of the needs and interests of refugees.
It is important to think about the way the distribution of refugees should be measured. When do certain cities or villages have taken in enough refugees and how can we measure the ‘costs’ of refugees? When looking at surveys from the SCP (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau), the main concerns, from the community with the integration of refugees are based on socio-‐cultural and economic arguments (SCP, 2015: 28).
The cultural arguments named against welcoming refugees, are partly built on the fear of criminal activities. With the attack in Paris in November 2015 and the recent bombing in Brussels in March 2016, the worry for new attacks has raised in the last year (SCP, 2016: 29). Some citizens believe that refugees have different norms and values than Dutch citizens and have a hard time adapting to these norms and values. The other related cultural threat noted by Dutch, for a great part older citizens, is the fear of losing their own national identity.
Besides the cultural and safety worries about refugees, some citizens are afraid that they will have to compete with refugees for the available jobs and housing space. These concerns are most of the time addressed by low-‐skilled and
poor Dutch citizens, because they believe refugees are competitors for jobs and housing in their ‘league’ (SCP, 2015: 32).
When looking at the burden of a refugee in the Netherlands, the focus of this thesis shall be on the economic costs to the refugee. In the first chapter I will elaborate on the interests of the different stakeholders. The chapter will be an outline of the three most involved stakeholders in the process and the current policy about the distribution of refugees. The three most important stakeholders that are discussed in this thesis are refugees, the community and the
government. I will discuss how these stakeholders are defined in this thesis in the first chapter.
In the second chapter I will discuss the different positions of
egalitarianism. I believe it is important and valuable to look at the different and, sometimes competing, interests of the stakeholders and decide what morally is the right thing to do. In this thesis, egalitarianism will serve as the moral
compass to solve the competing interests of the involved stakeholders. There are different views and perspectives on how equality should be interpreted and by looking at these views in the context of the distributive justice of refugees in the Netherlands; it can be a step towards a stable and just policy.
The four concepts that entitle different views on equality, and play an important part in developing a just framework on the distribution of refugees, are: Equality, sufficiency, priority and deservingness. These four concepts all entitle different moral views on the aim of distributive justice. The practical implications of the concepts are different, so it is valuable to discuss them and see how these concepts influence the policy around the distribution of refugees.
The first concept, equality, contains the core and beginning of egalitarianism. Equality aims at minimizing the gap between rich and poor, based on the assumption that this gap is unjust. They believe inequality is bad in itself and equality is worth pursuing. Some people believe the concept of equality aims too much on relational differences, though some egalitarians still believe equality should a goal in the end. The most-‐named reason against equality is the ‘levelling-‐down’ argument. This argument states that equality should not be an intrinsic value, but merely instrumental. An example is that there is no use in putting out the eyes of someone if someone else is blind and the other one is not.
A broader example is the focus on the gap between rich and poor. Defendants of egalitarianism believe this is something that should be diminished and equality should be considered as a non-‐instrument value. Theorists like Frankfurt (1987), think that the focus should be on sufficiency and equality can be a means to achieve a sufficiency-‐doctrine.
Is it a problem that the poor have more than the rich or that the poor do not have enough? According to theorists like Frankfurt, the focus should be on the possibility of people having decent life prospects, instead of the gap between rich and poor. A transfer of resources is allowed when the total of people that have enough increases. Nevertheless Frankfurt points out that governments should not abort equality, but he only thinks that equality offers no moral reasons to make certain decisions concerning economic distribution (Frankfurt, 1987: 23). The circumstances of others may provide useful insights on
someone’s wishes, but the amount of money someone needs is, according to Frankfurt not something that should be seen as a relational issue. Frankfurt believes that an egalitarian doctrine should not be focused on equality, but more on the fact that people have enough (Frankfurt, 1987: 24). The mostly-‐named critique on this theory is that it is hard to take out the relational aspect in drawing a sufficiency-‐line. Who are people that are in need and deserve compensation? It might be hard to choose between people if there is no clear definition of ‘sufficient’. Especially on the fact that it is unclear what is
considered as sufficient and when something or someone has sufficient resources.
A third alternative for using equality to create a more just distribution of the refugee shelters is prioritarianism. The prioritorian believes that people, who grade lower on the well-‐being score, morally deserve to gain more well-‐being. Institutions should be arranged to maximize this moral value. The priority view aims at the absolute level of well being, where egalitarians are more concerned with the relative level of well being (Parfit, 1997: 107). The prioritorian believes that policies and decisions have more moral value when they are focused on the worst off. They can rise more on the well being scale than other individuals. This priority view is hard to distinguish from the maximin-‐principle where the
priority also is on the person who is worst-‐off and then the person who is second-‐worst off.
A fourth alternative is the principle of desert. This principle is construed
along the line that people should be rewarded according to what they deserve (their virtue). Although this alternative is a lot of times named in the debate on equality, sufficiency and priority, the principle of desert is not that much related to egalitarianism, and in this way to the discussion in this thesis. The big
difference with the priority, sufficiency-‐ and equality view is the desert-‐principle does not always believe that the person who is badly off deserves to have more. If there has to be made a decision between a sinner, who is worse off but enjoys more fortune than she deserves, and a saint, who is better off but enjoys less fortune than she deserves, Kagan believes the saint morally deserves more than the sinner (Kagan, 2012: 341). Although this view can offer valuable insights in the discussion about the distribution of refugees, it steps away from the
egalitarian framework that is being used for this thesis.
All these concepts relate to the distribution of refugees in the Dutch case
and ask the most important question to the current debate around refugees: What egalitarian position provides the best policy framework for distributing refugees? I believe the sufficiency-‐doctrine offers the best egalitarian position to develop a fair distribution policy for refugees, because it can provide a two-‐ folded sufficiency threshold that serves both the interests of the refugees and the Dutch citizens. In the third chapter I will further explain why priority and
equality are less applicable alternatives for the distribution policy of refugees. Taking into account the interests of different stakeholders, and the different moral perspectives, the main goal of this thesis is to develop a framework for a moral and just policy on the distribution of refugees in the Netherlands. The first chapter will be an outline of the current policy around distributing refugees and a short overview of the interests of all stakeholders. The second chapter will cover the debate about equality, sufficiency and priority. In the final and third chapter, the first two chapters will be linked and the thesis will be concluded by a short policy advice to the Dutch government. The policy advice to the Dutch government is that if the government wants to minimize costs for the community and develop a just and fair policy, it should opt for a
sufficiency-‐perspective on the distribution policy. The sufficiency-‐doctrine can offer the best policy-‐framework, because it looks best after the interests of society and the needs of refugees. The five criteria that should determine the costs of refugees are: (I) Size, (II) income per capita, (III) economic
opportunities, (IV) housing space and the (V) available facilities. In the current policy the focus of the government is more on housing space and the available facilities to distribute refugees. In the third chapter I will argue for a distribution based on the sufficiency-‐doctrine with a concern for all five criteria.
I. Refugees, Citizens and The Government
This chapter will consist of two different parts. The first part will cover an
analysis of the different stakeholders and their interests. The second part focuses on the current policy, the costs of refugees and the dynamics between
municipalities and national government. The chapter will end with a brief introduction to the debate on equality that will follow in the next chapter.
The first stakeholder that should be taken into consideration is the group of refugees. Refugees are people that flee their home country, because the
situation is unsafe due war or other factors. It is important to distinguish
refugees from economic migrants, who want to immigrate to another country to improve their economic situation. The exclusion of all immigrants of the
discussion is due the fact that the discussion in this thesis is more about the justice of refugees in the Netherlands than about the openness of borders in Europe or the Netherlands. The justice of the refugee is something that can be related to the interests of the refugees in the policy of the Dutch government. This policy should be concerned with the distributive justice of the people living in the Netherlands. This brings us to the next stakeholder on the debate on distributive justice: The Dutch citizen or surrounding community.
The relationship between Dutch citizens and refugees does have a lot to
do with distributive justice and equality. In the media numerous videos of demonstrations and articles of unhappy citizens are point of attention. They believe it is unfair that refugees get priority on housing space and get offered job opportunities that should be theirs (GeenStijl, 2016). Other concerns of some citizens are that refugees cannot integrate to Dutch norms and values and will cause trouble and disrupt the day-‐to-‐day life. Of course these views do not represent all Dutch citizens, but it is important to look at the interests of the Dutch citizens when thinking about a just policy for the distribution of refugees throughout the Netherlands. The stakeholder that has to decide on the
distribution of refugees and take into account the interests of all stakeholders is the Dutch government.
An important question to ask when looking at the government as a stakeholder is to decide what the government is. There are different levels of government that have a say in the distribution of refugees. The main focus of this thesis will be on the Dutch case so the European decision-‐making process will not be part of the discussion. The European Union has decided that the Dutch government has to take in 28.000 refugees and distribute them in the
Netherlands. In the Netherlands there are different governmental levels, but the national government, the COA (Centraal Orgaan Azielzoekers) and the
municipalities have the most important say in the distribution of refugees and the rights and freedom they give to citizens of the state and (possible) future Dutch citizens, like refugees. As can be seen in a piece of the government about the incoming refugees, their main goal is to develop a just and stable policy, where the costs for the society will be as low as possible (convenant verhoogde asielstroom, 2015).
Refugees
The first important stakeholder that is central in the policy, and is to be
distributed, is the refugee. In Dutch vocabulary a word can sometimes explain itself. In my opinion, the Dutch word for refugee captures its definition best: ‘vluchteling’. With the verb ‘vluchten’ in it, meaning fleeing, it says that refugees are people that are fleeing from something. A refugee, in this case, is fleeing from its own country, because the situation is unsafe. There are various reasons and arguments to say that the situation in the home country of the refugee is unsafe. This could be due political oppression, war or religious persecution. The
definition that the United Nations uses is as follows:
‘Owing to a well-‐founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country’ (UNHRC, 1951).
The government decides whether a refugee is a truly a refugee or tends to be more an economic migrant. An economic migrant is interested in better life
conditions in economic sense. There is a grey area between an economic migrant and a refugee and it is the duty of the government to decide whom they take in and who have to leave the country. As stated before, this thesis will only focus on the people that are granted asylum. Of course, the discussion about the
acceptance of economic migrants and in what extent the Netherlands should have open borders is very interesting, but not part of the discussion in this thesis. This thesis and discussion focuses solely on the distribution of ‘accepted’ refugees in the Netherlands.
It is important to note that there are different phases in the distribution process. When refugees get into the country they are send to the crisis-‐need shelters. These shelters take refugees in, but only for 72 hours. Then they are sent to different shelters where they can stay for 6 to 12 months. After these shelters the refugees are going to the so-‐called ‘AZC’s’. These are the regular refugee shelters where they are waiting to get a permission to stay. The last phase in the distribution process is when the refugees are sent throughout the Netherlands to several municipalities. The duty to distribute all refugees in this phase is the responsibility of the national government. This last phase of the distribution process is the focus of this thesis. Of course all previous phases are interesting to focus on too, but the last phase focuses on the distribution of the refugees that are granted an asylum and can stay in the Netherlands. The distribution of the AZC’s could be interesting to look at too, but when refugees are granted asylum, they are seen as a Dutch citizen. Nevertheless, they have to be distributed in the Netherlands and the society has to take in the refugees and deal with the costs that come with taking in refugees.
When looking at refugees it is vital that the other stakeholders are
informed with the interests of refugees. It is hard to focus just on a few interests, because there is no such thing as one refugee. Halleh Ghorashi (2008) believes the stories of refugees are important to see as a source, because these life stories can be useful in policy. As a born Iranian and political refugee in the Netherlands Ghorashi interviewed Iranian women on being a refugee in the Netherlands (Gorashi, 2008: 120). Although the focus of Ghorashi is more on the retrospect of refugees who flew Iran in the end of the 1970’s, it is an interesting way of looking at policy. Because this thesis looks at the last stage in the distribution
process it is more relevant to look at the basic needs of refugees and how these are to be seen in the distribution policy. When looking at these needs and interests of refugees, it is important to consider the relation between economic and cultural interests. As mentioned before, the focus of the distribution process is on the last stage of the process, a permanent accommodation in a municipality somewhere in the Netherlands. In this chapter I will discuss the interests of refugees, but also the costs of taking in refugees.
The SCP has interviewed refugees in the Netherlands who have been here for a long-‐time and look in retrospect to their integration process. The four biggest refugee-‐groups at that point of time were from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Somalia (SCP, 2011: 11). The study only focussed on refugees who were granted asylum, just like this thesis. One of the findings is that refugees learn the Dutch language just as fast as Moroccan and Turkish citizens. This is noteworthy, because Moroccan and Turkish families live a lot longer in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, the language remains one of the problems of integration in society (SCP, 2011: 5).
The biggest part of the refugees, almost eighty per cent, is very satisfied with the integration process and how this leads to social contacts and acceptance in the Dutch society (SCP, 2011: 15). One of the disappointments of refugees in the Netherlands is the limited prospect on a job. A lot of refugees have trouble finding a job and end up being unemployed. Compared to ‘older’ migrant groups, like the Moroccan and Turkish people, refugees have a bigger unemployment rate. A third of the Somalian refugees are unemployed and the differences with the Dutch citizens are enormous (SCP, 2011: 16). The unemployment has according to the SCP to do with the low education of the refugees and limited control of the Dutch language.
Another difference comparing the refugee groups with migrants who have been living in the Netherlands for a longer time is that refugee groups live much more spread over the country. As a consequence, refugee groups are most of the time living in smaller villages (SCP, 2011: 16).
Another issue for refugees coming to the Netherlands are the use of health-‐care facilities. Refugees are, in general, are using more health services
than Dutch citizens. This has to do with the fact that the health of refugees is, in general, worse than Dutch natives (SCP, 2011: 18).
In general, most refugees are satisfied with their safety situation and the openness of the Dutch government towards other cultures and respect to the rights of immigrants. A negative aspect of the integration process, according to the refugees, is the prospect on a job and the discrimination that comes along with it. This is a concern that is mostly addressed by refugees with a higher education (SCP, 2011: 22).
Of course it is difficult to speak for all refugees, but looking at the economic perspective of refugees it seems reasonable to assume the main interests of refugees are housing, a prospect on a job and using facilities like hospitals and schools. When these interests are met, one can look at the more cultural perspective and the integration of refugees in Dutch society. Interests like a social network and integration into society come more in place when these material needs are satiable. In the third chapter, when the interests of refugees are related to the sufficiency-‐doctrine, the focus will be on the material needs of refugees.
The Community
The second stakeholder in the debate on the distribution of refugees is the Dutch citizen or in a wider notion: The community. I will shortly discuss the main interests of the Dutch citizens towards the distribution of refugees.
In a research of the SCP on the attitudes of Dutch citizens towards refugees, the refugee crisis has become more important on the political agenda than a few years ago (SCP, 2016: 10). People believe too many refugees are coming to the Netherlands and they are worried if they have enough space to shelter all the refugees.
In economic hard times, citizens are worried that refugees might take jobs
or housing space. Some citizens are angry with the government for giving refugees priority over their own citizens (SCP, 2016: 12).
Besides being afraid of a loss of housing and job opportunities, some
traditions will fade when the government allows more immigrants to live in ‘their’ country (SCP, 2016: 12).
A citizen also points to the critical role of the government should play. In the debate about refugees, some political parties (mostly the PVV) are creating anxiety amongst citizens. The task of political parties is to look after a peaceful society, according to a Dutch citizen (SCP, 2016: 16).
Looking at the distribution of refugees, and not at the general stance
towards welcoming refugees, citizens believe that refugees should be sheltered equally over the different municipalities. One of the big fears of sheltering the refugees is a village of thousand civilians and five hundred refugees who are coming to live in the village (website Omroep Noord-‐Brabant). Another example is Sumte, a little town in Germany, where hundred residents had to harbour thousand refugees. Citizens were worried that their culture would diminish with the arrival of the refugees (website RTL-‐Nieuws).
Consequences of taking in refugees are the Dutch facilities that are put
under pressure. Sentiments that dominate in society are that the government should put their ‘own citizens’ in first place. Some citizens argue that more money should go to the elderly or to Dutch children who suffer of poverty (SCP, 2015: 21).
Taking together all interests of the Dutch citizen about the distribution of
refugees, the main concerns focus on that the government should develop a fairly divided distribution and should make sure that the Dutch citizens do not lose job security and housing availability. Also the coming of refugees should not
influence the safety of the Dutch citizen.
The Government
The last stakeholder that will be discussed is the Dutch government. As discussed in the introduction it is hard to speak for the Dutch government, because there are several governmental actors that play an influential role in the distribution policy of refugees. The governmental actors that will be discussed in this thesis are the COA (Centrale Orgaan opvang asielzoekers), the national government and the municipalities.
The COA is a Dutch governmental organisation that mediates between the national government and municipalities to distribute refugees in the
Netherlands. The interests of the COA are to help find accommodations for refugee shelters in municipalities, but also to support refugees to find housing after granted asylum (COA, 2015: 5).
A task for the COA is to create political acceptance in the municipalities to take in more refugees. Besides moderating in municipalities, the COA is also responsible for the integration process of refugees. Together with municipalities and the community they want to create a broad foundation for acceptance and create a smooth integration of refugees in society (COA, 2015: 7).
In the national government, immigration and integration is part of the
Ministry of Security and Justice. As stated in the introduction the overall goal of the government, with more refugees coming to the Netherlands, is to minimize costs for society and create a fair and just policy (convenant verhoogde
asielstroom, 2015).
Most of the governmental duties concerned with finding locations for
refugees and supporting the integration process are in hands off the COA and municipalities. The central government ought to coordinate the distribution policy of refugees and is, in the end, responsible for the results of their policy.
It is interesting to see the dynamics between the central government and
the involved municipalities. Some cities or villages are welcoming refugees, where others do not take any, or little, responsibility. In an article in The
Volkskrant, the four biggest municipalities (Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam, Den Haag) made an appeal to the government in The Hague to get more money to take care of the refugees they are harbouring in their. They do not want to cut off financial aid to their own citizens, when they take in refugees. The four
municipalities are not against taking in refugees, but do not only want to offer an accommodation. Refugees need some support to take care of education, health care, counsel for getting a job and their social integration. If the central
government not gives the municipalities the money, they see the future situation of the refugees as alarming: ‘They will have a life standing outside society and a big chance of living on assistance. This is a chance we do not want and will not take’ (De Volkskrant, 2016).
Besides needing more money, and sometimes commotion under their citizens, some municipalities are taking the lead in developing a distribution policy. The mayor of Tilburg, Peter Noordanus, said that refugees should be distributed according to the size of their city or village. Noordanus calls his plan the ‘Pact van Brabant’. Noordanus argues that if all municipalities in the province Brabant will cooperate, the distribution of refugees would be much easier and the pressure on refugee (crisis) shelters would decrease. If the plan of
Noordanus works, the province can offer housing space to 7209 refugees (Eindhovens Dagblad, 2016).
Noordanus’ initiative is really brave and these initiatives are key to create a steady foundation for a fair refugee distribution. Nevertheless, not all
municipalities are willing to cooperate. Taking in the interests of the community, there are several concerns with refugees coming to their city or town and one of the concerns about the distribution of refugees is that they are distributed equally. Noordanus’ starting point of distributing refugees in his province is to distribute them according to the size of the municipalities. Still, my belief is that there are more criteria needed to make an equal distribution of refugees. The NOS reported that the poor municipalities shelter more refugees than richer towns and cities (NOS, 2015). How would a distribution look like if the refugees would be distributed according to wealth of municipalities? Or should it be an accompanying principle besides wealth? When looking at a fair distribution, where in the words of the government the costs of society are minimized, the costs of a refugee on society ought to be concretized in the distribution criteria mentioned in the introduction (Size, income per capita, housing space, economic opportunities and available facilities).
In the next chapter the focus will be on the different conceptions of equality. Besides looking at the interests of society and look at their stance towards refugees, it is important to look at egalitarianism in the distributive justice. What is the critique on the concept of equality and do priority or sufficiency provide a valuable alternative for distributive justice? In the third chapter the interests of the different stakeholders and the perspectives on egalitarianism in distributive justice will be linked.
II: Within Egalitarianism: Equality, Priority
and Sufficiency
This chapter will give an overview of the different forms of egalitarianism: Equality, priority and sufficiency. The main arguments for-‐ and against these perspectives will be discussed and the conclusion will focus on the best approach for the various stakeholders and the policy in general. It is important to note, as stated in the introduction, that the principle of desert will not be discussed in this thesis.
The first concept that grasps the core of egalitarianism is equality. One can argue that equality takes on egalitarianism in a strict sense. The general basis for the principle of equality is that these theorists believe that equality is better than inequality (Crisp, 2003: 746).
One of the proponents and defendants of the concept of equality is Thomas Nagel (1979). In his book ‘Mortal Questions’ he narrows down the concept of equality to economic equality. One of the questions around equality is whether it should be an intrinsic or instrumental value. Is equality something that is worth striving for in itself or should it merely be a means to achieve other values? According to Nagel there are two types of arguments to argue for the intrinsic value of equality (Nagel, 1979: 108). From communitarian point of view, it can be argued that equality is a valuable good and is good for society as a whole, because it sets healthy conditions on the relationship among members in society. An individualistic argument is that equality is the best way to approach distributive justice as it, in a way, solves conflicting needs and interests of people (Nagel, 1979: 108). Nagel believes, from an individualistic point of view, that equality should serve as a moral basis in liberal egalitarianism. When there is some sort of conflict, no result can be completely acceptable for everyone. A radical egalitarian policy would, regardless of the numbers always give priority to the worst off. And in this sense, equality will always choose the least
Nagel relates equality to acceptability in this way and makes it clearer with an example of two children, where one is normal and quite happy and the other child has a handicap. Should the family move to a more expensive city so the second kid can get proper treatment, where the standard of living will be lowered and they have to live in a dangerous and unpleasant neighbourhood? Another option would be to live in a suburb where the first child can practise his interests in culture and nature (Nagel 1979: 109). What role should the principle of equality play in this case to solve these conflicting interests? Nagel states that moving to the city would be an egalitarian decision. The needs of the
handicapped kid are more urgent than the interests of the other kid. In this case, the happiness of the first kid is lowered, when the happiness and needs of the handicapped kid have increased (Nagel, 1979: 111). The problem with the example of the children is explained in the levelling-‐down objection against equality.
Derek Parfit, a theorist who argues for prioritarianism, developed the ‘leveling-‐down objection’ against egalitarianism. A strict egalitarian will in the following situation always choose for the first option that might seem opposed to intuition:
Group I Group II
LD Equality 9 9
Inequality 99 100
A utilitarian always looks at the sum of benefits, where an egalitarian says that the benefits sometimes have to compensate due a fair distribution. Nagel states that we, when looking at egalitarianism, have to look at a fair distribution, regardless the numbers (Nagel, 1979: 109). Parfit believes that this focus on distribution instead of utility constitutes the ‘leveling-down objection’ and takes the example of the children to explain his argument.
Child I Child II
Move to the city 20 10
Parfit states that he is not a strict egalitarian, but equality does have value. In the example of the children Nagel believes moving to the city is an egalitarian decision, because the more urgent needs of the handicapped child are met. Parfit argues that the argumentation of Nagel is not based on the notion of equality, but on the view of priority (Parfit, 1997: 213).
When comparing the view of equality with the priority view, the priority view focuses more on the worst off than the egalitarians focus on equality. Parfit states that it differs from the utilitarians, because prioritorians care more about the benefits of the worst off than the total accumulated benefits (Parfit, 1997: 213). Egalitarians can argue that they would say the same about giving priority to the worst off. But, according and defined by Parfit, the biggest difference with the egalitarian view is that prioritorians do not necessarily believe in equality as a moral concept.
Prioritarians believe that people who are lower on an absolute level deserve more benefits than others. It is, in the priority view of Parfit, irrelevant if people are worse off than others (Parfit, 1997: 214). This relational difference between the equality view and priority view is the fundamental structural difference between these two views.
In this sense, the choice being made is if inequality is bad in itself or,
according to the priority view, inequality does not matter. Larry Temkin (2003) is not convinced with the leveling down objection. He does believe relativity is an important factor in egalitarianism and names his form of egalitarianism equality as comparative
fairness (Temkin, 2003: 62). Unlike Parfit, Temkin believes in telic egalitarianism.
This view does say that inequality is something bad in itself and equality as a principle can be a goal. The critique of Temkin with the leveling-down objection is constituted around a principle that is at heart of the leveling-down objection: The slogan (1993: 128).
The Slogan: One situation cannot be worse (or better) than another if there is no one
for whom it is worse (or better).
Temkin argues that it is important to look at the person-affected claim of the slogan. This claim means that outcomes should be evaluated only on the way that the people who are affected by the outcomes are better or worse off. Temkin believes the slogan
should be challenged and in that way, the leveling-down objection (Temkin, 1993: 133). I shall not get in too deep in the arguments of Temkin, but his basic stance is that he believes the slogan ‘carves out, shapes or whittles down the domain of moral value’. Temkin believes that, normatively speaking, a leveled-down situation is not necessarily worse than an unlevelled down situation (Temkin, 2003: 73). Coming back to the person-affected claim: Temkin states that equality is an impersonal ideal. An impersonal, non-instrumental ideal is an ideal that lies partly or wholly beyond any contribution to individual well-being. These ideals make the outcome good; independently to the realization to what extent they are good for people (Temkin, 2003: 74). The slogan says there cannot be such an ideal, because it says an outcome ought to be good for people, and promote individual well-being.
As egalitarians believe that it is unfair to be born blind, they would rather see an all-blind world instead of a world where some people are blind and other are not. But, it would not be a good idea to blind everyone, because egalitarians can be pluralists and as a consequence, do not believe equality is all that matters (Temkin, 2003: 68). In this sense Temkin cannot be seen as a strict egalitarianist. Unlike Parfit, Temkin is not that sure about prioritarianism, and believes all three different
perspectives (egalitarianism, prioritarianism, sufficiency) offer valuable insights in distributive justice.
Another argument, formulated against prioritarianism by Otsuka and
Voorhoeve (2009), focuses on intrapersonal and interpersonal aspect of the priority view and the risk-aversity of the priority-view. The example Otsuka and Voorhoeve use is of a young man who is in perfect health, but will soon develop a mobility-affecting impairment. It is not sure if it is a slight impairment or a very severe impairment. The chances are fifty-fifty.
Slight impairment: A condition that renders it difficult for one to walk more than
2km.
Very severe impairment: A condition that leaves one bedridden, save for the fact that
one will be able to sit in a chair and be moved around in a wheelchair for part of the day assisted by others.
The treatment can only be effective for each impairment before it is known which impairment he will suffer (Otuska & Voorhoeve, 2009: 172). He cannot take both treatments and the treatment for the mild disability will have no effect on the very severe impairment. However, if the man decides to take the treatment for the very severe impairment it will only be efficient for the very severe impairment and change the impairment to:
Severe impairment: A condition in which one is no longer bedridden; rather one is
able to sit up on one’s own for the entire day but requires assistance of others to move about.
According to Otsuka and Voorhoeve surveys have shown that people are indifferent with the decision between the two treatments and so is the man in the example. When you have to choose which treatment the man should take, you should also be
indifferent about the two treatments the man is supposed to take (Otsuka & Voorhoeve, 2009: 173). Someone should not be indifferent when the perspective changes from intrapersonal to interpersonal. In the interpersonal example, the individual has to choose in a group of individuals which treatment they have to take. You, as an individual, know what impairment every member of the group has and as a consequence, what treatment they need to take. Half of the group has the slight
impairment and the other half has the very severe impairment. You have to choose which half will get the treatment: The group with the slight impairment or the group with the very severe impairment. According to Otsuka and Voorhoeve, the only reasonable and fair decision would be to treat the group with the very severe
impairment (Otsuka & Voorhoeve, 2009: 174). Why do we change our perspectives on the treatment when the circumstances change from intrapersonal to an
interpersonal perspective? Otsuka and Voorhoeve believe that people give priority to the worst off even if the expected utility would be less when choosing for the group with the very severe impairment. Otsuka and Voorhoeve believe that this example shows a weakness of the priority view. The priority view of Parft states: ’Benefiting people matters more the worst off these people are’ (Parfit, 1997: 214). Otsuka and Voorhoeve think that it is wrong that people who are lower on an absolute level need priority, when the group in total gains less utility.
