Talk:Equity (economics)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lachvjnvnbking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Vertical & Horizontal equity
In my class today on the Federal income tax, we're discussing vertical equity and horizontal equity. I'll be adding content to this article as we learn more, but I'd appreciate a little help! :) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Charness's comment on this article
Dr. Charness has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"1) This article misses the idea that equity is not equality. The equity principle has to do with people getting what they deserve. For example, if one party contributes more effort or resources to a joint project than others do, it can be argued that this party should receive a higher proportion of the benefits than those others."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Charness has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


 * Reference : Charness, Gary & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2003. "Promises & Partnership," Research Papers in Economics 2003:3, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Moreno-Ternero's comment on this article
Dr. Moreno-Ternero has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Equitability in fair division means every person’s subjective valuation of their own share of some goods is the same. The surplus procedure (SP) achieves a more complex variant called proportional equitability. For more than two people, a division cannot always both be equitable and envy-free.

This paragraph is very weak. The previous two could also be improved. In the last forty years, a variety of formal criteria of economic justice have been introduced in economic theory (see, for instance, Thomson (2014) and the literature cited therein). These criteria have broad conceptual appeal, as well as significant operational power, and have contributed considerably to our understanding of normative issues concerning the allocation of goods and services. Some focal references are the following: Fleurbaey, M., Maniquet, F., 2006. Fair income tax. Review of Economic Studies 73, 55-83. Fleurbaey, M., Maniquet, F., (2011), A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare, Econometric Society Monograph, Cambridge University Press. Foley, D., (1967), Resource allocation and the public sector, Yale Econ. Essays 7, 45-98. Moreno-Ternero, J.D., Roemer, J.E. 2006. Impartiality, priority and solidarity in the theory of justice. Econometrica 74, 1419-1427. Moulin, H., Roemer, J., (1989), Public ownership of the external world and private ownership of self, Journal of Political Economy 97, 347-367. Pazner E., Schmeidler, D., (1974), A difficulty in the concept of fairness, Review of Economic Studies 41, 991-993. Roemer, J., (1996), Theories of distributive justice, Harvard University Press. Thomson, W., 2014. The Theory of Fair Allocation, Princeton University Press. Forthcoming. Young P., 1988. Distributive justice in taxation, Journal of Economic Theory 44, 321-38"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Moreno-Ternero has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : JU, Biung-Ghi & MORENO-TERNERO, Juan, 2016. "Fair allocation of disputed properties," International Economic Review. Forthcoming

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Vadovic's comment on this article
Dr. Vadovic has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"1. "Equity or economic equality is the concept or idea of fairness in economics, particularly in regard to [income,] taxation or welfare economics." insert the text in brackets

2. "Equity may be distinguished from economic efficiency in overall evaluation of social welfare. Although 'equity' has broader uses, it may be posed as a counterpart to economic inequality in yielding a "good" distribution of wealth. It has been studied in experimental economics as inequity aversion."

Edit this paragraph as follows: "Equity may be distinguished from economic efficiency in overall evaluation of social welfare. Although 'equity' has broader uses, it may be posed as a counterpart to economic inequality in yielding a "good" distribution of wealth. It has been studied in experimental economics as inequity aversion."

"Equity should be distinguished from the concept of economic efficiency. Equitable distribution of resources does not imply efficiency. For instance, in a competitive market with intersecting supply and demand, if everyone trades, the social welfare is lower than it would be in the efficient competitive equilibrium. Although 'equity' has a broader scope, it may pose as a counterpart to economic inequality in yielding a "good" distribution of wealth. It has been established by behavioral and experimental economists that is part of human nature to be averse to inequitable treatment or unequal distribution of resources.[ref. Fehr & Schmidt, 1999 and Bolton & Ockenfels, 2000]"

Refs. Fehr, Ernst, and Klaus M. Schmidt. "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation." Quarterly journal of Economics (1999): 817-868. Bolton, Gary E., and Axel Ockenfels. "ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition." American economic review (2000): 166-193."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Vadovic has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Maros Servatka & Radovan Vadovic, 2008. "Does Fairness of the Outside Option Matter?," Working Papers in Economics 08/06, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Equity (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010141137/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=8982 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=8982

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

is this a concept or a movement?
Previously a paragraph in the short decription stated:

"More specifically, it may refer to equal life chances regardless of identity, to provide all citizens with a basic and equal minimum of income, goods, and services or to increase funds and commitment for redistribution."

This is not grammatical and in fact makes no sense. To illustrate:

I read this as an enumeration of three more specific meanings of it (being "equality"):

meaning 1: "equal life chances regardless of identity"

meaning 2: "to provide all citizens with a basic and equal minimum of income, goods, and services"

meaning 3: "to increase funds and commitment for redistribution"

If this was phrased with meaning 2 in isolation:

"More specifically, it may refer to provide all citizens with a basic and equal minimum of income, goods, and services."

This is not grammatical. Equality cannot provide a minimum of income.

Meaning 3 in isolation:

"More specifically, it may refer to increase funds and commitment for redistribution"

Equality as an idea or concept cannot increase funds or commitment for redistribution.

Concepts are not agentic and do not advocate for implementing themselves.

People (or an implied ideological movement?) may say that equality is desirable and therefore this movement's stated aim

is "to increase funds and commitment for redistribution".

Hence I changed it. But I'm not quite sure, what exact movement, school of thought or ideology is being referred to.

So it would be nice, if someone with more semantic insight on this topic could clarify this.

Or perhaps drop this sentence altogether? Must.learn.more. (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)