What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ethics of Redistribution
In this concise and elegant work, first published in 1952, Bertrand de Jouvenel purposely ignores the economic evidence that redistributional efforts sap incentives and are economically destructive. Rather, he stresses the commonly disregarded ethical arguments showing that redistribution is ethically indefensible for, and practically unworkable in, a complex society. Bertrand de Jouvenel was an author and teacher, first publishing On Power in 1945. John Gray is Professor Emeritus of European Thought at the London School of Economics.
118 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1951
7 people are currently reading
423 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
July 25, 2013
Interesting Quote:
"The moral seduction of socialism lies in the fact that it repudiates the methodological exploitation of the personal interest motive, of the fleshly appetites, of egoism...insofar as it has endorsed this society's pursuit of ever-increasing consumption, it has become a heterogeneous system, torn by an inner contradiction.
"If 'more goods' are the goal to which society's efforts are to be addressed, why should 'more goods' be a disreputable objective for the individual? Socialism suffers from ambiguity in its judgment of values. If the good of society lies in greater riches, why not the good of the individual? If society should press toward that good, why not the individual? If this appetite for riches is wrong in the individual, why not in society? Here, then, is at least a prima facie incoherence, indeed a blatant heterogeneity."
-Bertrand de Jouvenel, the Ethics of Redistribution
"The moral seduction of socialism lies in the fact that it repudiates the methodological exploitation of the personal interest motive, of the fleshly appetites, of egoism...insofar as it has endorsed this society's pursuit of ever-increasing consumption, it has become a heterogeneous system, torn by an inner contradiction.
"If 'more goods' are the goal to which society's efforts are to be addressed, why should 'more goods' be a disreputable objective for the individual? Socialism suffers from ambiguity in its judgment of values. If the good of society lies in greater riches, why not the good of the individual? If society should press toward that good, why not the individual? If this appetite for riches is wrong in the individual, why not in society? Here, then, is at least a prima facie incoherence, indeed a blatant heterogeneity."
-Bertrand de Jouvenel, the Ethics of Redistribution
January 8, 2021
Nozick doesn't cite this for the Day 2 Problem???
February 17, 2016
Filósofo francês de orientação liberal, Jouvenel foi um dos fundadores da Mont Pelerin Society, junto com figuras como Friedrich Hayek e Milton Friedman.
Baseado em um discurso realizado pelo autor em uma escola de Cambridge, em 1949, este é um estudo definitivo sobre a redistribuição forçada (exercida pelo estado) como ferramenta de redução das desigualdades.
Jouvenel versa tanto sobre a questão ética quanto sobre viabilidade econômica da redistribuição, demonstrando por cálculos simples como a renda dos mais ricos não é suficiente para complementar os ganhos dos mais pobres, o que acaba por sobrecarregar a classe média.
Uma obra essencial que denuncia o uso do discurso da redistribuição como pretexto para o crescimento do estado e a intervenção deste sobre as liberdades dos indivíduos.
Baseado em um discurso realizado pelo autor em uma escola de Cambridge, em 1949, este é um estudo definitivo sobre a redistribuição forçada (exercida pelo estado) como ferramenta de redução das desigualdades.
Jouvenel versa tanto sobre a questão ética quanto sobre viabilidade econômica da redistribuição, demonstrando por cálculos simples como a renda dos mais ricos não é suficiente para complementar os ganhos dos mais pobres, o que acaba por sobrecarregar a classe média.
Uma obra essencial que denuncia o uso do discurso da redistribuição como pretexto para o crescimento do estado e a intervenção deste sobre as liberdades dos indivíduos.
August 11, 2015
A classic. Brilliantly paced, stylistically excellent. De Jouvenal offers a compelling arguments against redistributionist policies.
August 26, 2018
In this small book, Bertrand de Jouvenal considers redistributionism from an ethical, rather than economic, perspective. He assumes, only for the purpose of his ethical analysis, that redistribution of income has no impact on overall productive activity. De Jouvenal demonstrates that the redistributionism diminishes individual responsibility, degrades the importance of the family, and dramatically augments the power of the state relative to that of the individual. In an appendix to the book, he uses actual data to show that raising the income of the poor cannot be accomplished by transfer of income from the wealthy, because there simply aren’t enough wealthy who have enough wealth to accomplish this. Rather, establishing a floor of income beneath which none would be permitted to sink, could only be accomplished by imposing an income ceiling beyond which none would be permitted to rise. That ceiling would be found at income levels now considered middle or lower-middle class.
February 3, 2021
“Living is a social process. Our individual life is not for ourselves alone. A generous spirit will render many services to society outside his professional activities. A professor’s open table may be a means of education superior to his lectures, or complementary to them. Individual income, socially consumed, is a means to such services. These are not accounted as productive services, because they are free. The misleading picture of national income takes into account only services on which a commercial price is put. This is blinding us to the destruction of values which are not commercialized.”
Interesting little book. The arguments regarding the transfer of decision making from individuals to large centralized “corporate bodies” like the state, and the corporation seem only more true today. Likewise with the negative impact of redistribution on the “good” society and non-economic social structures (family, community, club etc.).
Lastly, de Jouvenal’s explanation of the role of surplus income in arts and culture is well worth consideration:
“There is generally no market for new ideas. These have to be elaborated and set forth the cost of the innovator or a few adepts. It is interesting thought that the writings of Marx’ Das Capital was made possible only by Engles’ benefaction out of untaxed profits. Marx did not have to sell his wares in the market, nor did he have to get his project excepted by a public foundation of learning. His career testifies to the social utility of surplus income. It is of course assumed by Etatistes of today that Marx under the new dispensation would benefit from ample an honorable public support. But it seems so to them because his idea is now an old one and is accepted as the prevailing prejudice of our time. An innovator as bold today as he was in his day would not get by the boards of control which administer public funds. Nor is this scandalous: it is not the business of those who administer the common chest to subsidize bold ideas. They have to be offered on the market for ideas by convinced ventures.”
One critique: The brief portions dealing with finite numbers are hard to comprehend due to inflation between the time of publication (1952) and today. Perhaps they were convincing then. They land a bit flat now. Overall, a short book with an impressive number of still relevant big ideas
Interesting little book. The arguments regarding the transfer of decision making from individuals to large centralized “corporate bodies” like the state, and the corporation seem only more true today. Likewise with the negative impact of redistribution on the “good” society and non-economic social structures (family, community, club etc.).
Lastly, de Jouvenal’s explanation of the role of surplus income in arts and culture is well worth consideration:
“There is generally no market for new ideas. These have to be elaborated and set forth the cost of the innovator or a few adepts. It is interesting thought that the writings of Marx’ Das Capital was made possible only by Engles’ benefaction out of untaxed profits. Marx did not have to sell his wares in the market, nor did he have to get his project excepted by a public foundation of learning. His career testifies to the social utility of surplus income. It is of course assumed by Etatistes of today that Marx under the new dispensation would benefit from ample an honorable public support. But it seems so to them because his idea is now an old one and is accepted as the prevailing prejudice of our time. An innovator as bold today as he was in his day would not get by the boards of control which administer public funds. Nor is this scandalous: it is not the business of those who administer the common chest to subsidize bold ideas. They have to be offered on the market for ideas by convinced ventures.”
One critique: The brief portions dealing with finite numbers are hard to comprehend due to inflation between the time of publication (1952) and today. Perhaps they were convincing then. They land a bit flat now. Overall, a short book with an impressive number of still relevant big ideas
December 2, 2025
L'Éthique de la Redistribution: Eine libertäre ethische Herausforderung
Bertrand de Jouvenels (1903 - 1987)„L’Éthique de la Redistribution“ (Die Ethik der Umverteilung), hier in der Reihe Bibliothèque classique de la liberté präsentiert, ist eine pointierte philosophische Kritik an der modernen Praxis staatlich organisierter Umverteilung. Jouvenel beleuchtet aus klar libertärer Perspektive die moralischen und gesellschaftlichen Spannungen, die entstehen, wenn der Staat in die Vermögenssphäre des Einzelnen eingreift.
Eigentum und Leistung als ethische Prämisse Jouvenel betont die Heiligkeit des Eigentums und die Moralität der Leistung: Einkommen ist Ausdruck persönlicher Anstrengung und Identität. Jede zwangsweise Umverteilung – selbst für einen „guten Zweck“ wie soziale Gerechtigkeit – wird als ethische Verletzung der individuellen Freiheit verstanden.
Zerstörung von Verantwortung und Machtverschiebung Er warnt, dass staatliche Umverteilung die persönliche Verantwortung untergräbt und eine ethische Verrohung fördert. Die Macht verschiebt sich vom Individuum zum Staat: Jeder umverteilte Euro bedeutet nicht nur ökonomische, sondern auch politische und soziale Zentralisierung, die Autonomie schwächt.
Kommerzialisierung von Werten und der Einfluss des Neids Jouvenel zeigt, dass staatlich finanzierte Leistungen ehemals freiwillige, altruistische Aktivitäten in kommerzielle Sektoren überführen. Zudem hinterfragt er kritisch, ob Neid nicht ein unterschwelliges Motiv hinter Umverteilungsforderungen sein könnte – eine provokante ethische Spitze, die die altruistische Fassade infrage stellt.
Eine unbequeme moralische Lektüre „L'Éthique de la Redistribution“ zwingt dazu, Umverteilung nicht nur als ökonomisches Instrument zu betrachten, sondern als moralisches Geflecht, das Freiheit, Verantwortung und bürgerschaftliches Engagement berührt. Auch wenn man Jouvenels libertäre Schlussfolgerungen nicht teilt, bleibt seine Diagnose der Nebenwirkungen – Schwächung freiwilliger Hilfe, Kommerzialisierung von Werten, Zentralisierung der Macht – eine relevante Herausforderung für jede moderne Gesellschaft. Das Werk wirkt als moralisches Korrektiv und erinnert daran, dass Gleichheitsbestrebungen stets einen Preis in Freiheit und individueller Ethik fordern.
Eigentum und Leistung als ethische Prämisse Jouvenel betont die Heiligkeit des Eigentums und die Moralität der Leistung: Einkommen ist Ausdruck persönlicher Anstrengung und Identität. Jede zwangsweise Umverteilung – selbst für einen „guten Zweck“ wie soziale Gerechtigkeit – wird als ethische Verletzung der individuellen Freiheit verstanden.
Zerstörung von Verantwortung und Machtverschiebung Er warnt, dass staatliche Umverteilung die persönliche Verantwortung untergräbt und eine ethische Verrohung fördert. Die Macht verschiebt sich vom Individuum zum Staat: Jeder umverteilte Euro bedeutet nicht nur ökonomische, sondern auch politische und soziale Zentralisierung, die Autonomie schwächt.
Kommerzialisierung von Werten und der Einfluss des Neids Jouvenel zeigt, dass staatlich finanzierte Leistungen ehemals freiwillige, altruistische Aktivitäten in kommerzielle Sektoren überführen. Zudem hinterfragt er kritisch, ob Neid nicht ein unterschwelliges Motiv hinter Umverteilungsforderungen sein könnte – eine provokante ethische Spitze, die die altruistische Fassade infrage stellt.
Eine unbequeme moralische Lektüre „L'Éthique de la Redistribution“ zwingt dazu, Umverteilung nicht nur als ökonomisches Instrument zu betrachten, sondern als moralisches Geflecht, das Freiheit, Verantwortung und bürgerschaftliches Engagement berührt. Auch wenn man Jouvenels libertäre Schlussfolgerungen nicht teilt, bleibt seine Diagnose der Nebenwirkungen – Schwächung freiwilliger Hilfe, Kommerzialisierung von Werten, Zentralisierung der Macht – eine relevante Herausforderung für jede moderne Gesellschaft. Das Werk wirkt als moralisches Korrektiv und erinnert daran, dass Gleichheitsbestrebungen stets einen Preis in Freiheit und individueller Ethik fordern.
July 12, 2024
AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987) was a French philosopher, political economist, and futurist. (He was also suspected during the Second World War of having some fascist/Nazi sympathies.) This book consists of two lectures that he delivered in 1949.
He begins the first lecture (on The Socialist Ideal), "I propose to discuss a predominant preoccupation of our day: the redistribution of incomes." (Pg. 5) Although critical of socialism, he says that the socialist idea is "not to be summarily dismissed," because a community based upon a "fraternal partaking of the common produce, and inspired by the deep-seated feeling that its members are of one family, should not be called utopian." (Pg. 14)
He admits that relief is an "unquestionable social obligation," but argues that the notion of redistribution is based on "a belief in the rightness of redistribution from the richer to the poorer." (Pg. 22-23) He points out, however, that even a radical redistribution would be "by a long way inadequate to raise our nether incomes to a desirable level." (Pg. 28) He also notes that the argument works both ways: "Let us by all means turn yachts into county council houses. But it works in the other direction as soon as redistribution cuts into the cultural expenditure of the middle classes to feed the amusement industries." (Pg. 64)
He calls a "paradoxical outcome of socialist policies" that services which were originally rendered without thought of reward are now either disappearing, or are being turned into professions "and therefore performed for monetary reward." (Pg. 70) He ironically notes that "Marx did not have to get his project accepted by a public foundation of learning... An innovator as bold today as he was in his day would not get by the boards of control which administer public funds... It is not the business of those who administer the common chest to subsidize bold ideas." (Pg. 71)
This book contains some creative and thought-provoking arguments, and will be of considerable interest to conservatives and libertarians.
Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903-1987) was a French philosopher, political economist, and futurist. (He was also suspected during the Second World War of having some fascist/Nazi sympathies.) This book consists of two lectures that he delivered in 1949.
He begins the first lecture (on The Socialist Ideal), "I propose to discuss a predominant preoccupation of our day: the redistribution of incomes." (Pg. 5) Although critical of socialism, he says that the socialist idea is "not to be summarily dismissed," because a community based upon a "fraternal partaking of the common produce, and inspired by the deep-seated feeling that its members are of one family, should not be called utopian." (Pg. 14)
He admits that relief is an "unquestionable social obligation," but argues that the notion of redistribution is based on "a belief in the rightness of redistribution from the richer to the poorer." (Pg. 22-23) He points out, however, that even a radical redistribution would be "by a long way inadequate to raise our nether incomes to a desirable level." (Pg. 28) He also notes that the argument works both ways: "Let us by all means turn yachts into county council houses. But it works in the other direction as soon as redistribution cuts into the cultural expenditure of the middle classes to feed the amusement industries." (Pg. 64)
He calls a "paradoxical outcome of socialist policies" that services which were originally rendered without thought of reward are now either disappearing, or are being turned into professions "and therefore performed for monetary reward." (Pg. 70) He ironically notes that "Marx did not have to get his project accepted by a public foundation of learning... An innovator as bold today as he was in his day would not get by the boards of control which administer public funds... It is not the business of those who administer the common chest to subsidize bold ideas." (Pg. 71)
This book contains some creative and thought-provoking arguments, and will be of considerable interest to conservatives and libertarians.
November 28, 2018
In “L’etica della redistribuzione”, Bertrand de Jouvenel sceglie di analizzare le politiche redistributive puramente sotto il profilo etico, anziché approfondire le conseguenze disincentivanti che possano da esse derivare.
I presupposti logici del trasferimento di ricchezza dalle fasce più ricche a quelle più povere sono due. In primis l’idea che sia “giusto e necessario” sconfiggere l’indigenza tramite il sacrificio di chi ha meno necessità. In secondo luogo, la teoria per cui l’ineguaglianza economica sia di per sé un male da combattere.
Il concetto di redistribuzione rappresenta cioè che solleva l’individuo da una spesa che avrebbe potuto sostenere con il proprio denaro. Il tesi centrale del libro è che la teoria della redistribuzione sia il pretesto per trasferire risorse - e, quindi, potere - dalla società civile allo Stato.
Come nota Antonio Martino nell’Introduzione, il nostro sistema assistenzialistico “è basato su una concezione paternalistica della povertà: lo Stato individua alcuni bisogni ritenuti essenziali e si assume l’onere di fornire, spesso in condizioni di monopolio, i relativi servizi all’intera collettività.”
L’autore, nel capitolo conclusivo, mostra come lo Stato assistenziale costi più di quanto renda. Il trasferimento di ricchezza, con la conseguente mastodontica burocrazia, ha infatti un suo costo, addebitato sulle spalle della collettività.
L’obiettivo dello Stato assistenziale non sembra però essere il benessere delle classi meno abbienti, quanto più quello dei politici e dei burocrati. Scrive Jouvenel: “In realtà la redistribuzione, più che trasferimento di reddito dai più ricchi ai più poveri, come credevamo, è una redistribuzione di potere dall’individuo allo Stato.”
I presupposti logici del trasferimento di ricchezza dalle fasce più ricche a quelle più povere sono due. In primis l’idea che sia “giusto e necessario” sconfiggere l’indigenza tramite il sacrificio di chi ha meno necessità. In secondo luogo, la teoria per cui l’ineguaglianza economica sia di per sé un male da combattere.
Il concetto di redistribuzione rappresenta cioè che solleva l’individuo da una spesa che avrebbe potuto sostenere con il proprio denaro. Il tesi centrale del libro è che la teoria della redistribuzione sia il pretesto per trasferire risorse - e, quindi, potere - dalla società civile allo Stato.
Come nota Antonio Martino nell’Introduzione, il nostro sistema assistenzialistico “è basato su una concezione paternalistica della povertà: lo Stato individua alcuni bisogni ritenuti essenziali e si assume l’onere di fornire, spesso in condizioni di monopolio, i relativi servizi all’intera collettività.”
L’autore, nel capitolo conclusivo, mostra come lo Stato assistenziale costi più di quanto renda. Il trasferimento di ricchezza, con la conseguente mastodontica burocrazia, ha infatti un suo costo, addebitato sulle spalle della collettività.
L’obiettivo dello Stato assistenziale non sembra però essere il benessere delle classi meno abbienti, quanto più quello dei politici e dei burocrati. Scrive Jouvenel: “In realtà la redistribuzione, più che trasferimento di reddito dai più ricchi ai più poveri, come credevamo, è una redistribuzione di potere dall’individuo allo Stato.”
April 18, 2024
In two lectures, Bertrand de Jouvenal considers redistributionism from an ethical and, to a lesser extent, on an economic perspective. De Jouvenal’s ethical analysis does not focus on opportunity costs or lost productive activity. The author argues that redistributionism leads to a diminution of individual responsibility, sunders family ties, and contributes to the Omnicompetent state.
De Jouvenal argues that establishing a floor of income beneath which none would be permitted to sink, will result in confiscatory taxation, at a level at which none could rise. Given income levels in the West, that ceiling would be found at income levels now associated with the middle class.
De Jouvenal notes the Christian imperative of charity, but is loath to consider its modern implications. Moreover, he fails to explicate the Aristotelian conception of natural right so integral to this argument. My friend, a special education administrator in Cheyenne, Wyoming, believes that $753 billion dollars of student loans should be ‘forgiven.’ An idea that is akin to celebrating vandalism, insofar as it subsidizes illegality, and transfers costs to working adults.
This book is stimulating. However, Murray Rothbard is a more steadfast source of philosophical wisdom with respect to these matters. His "Ethics of Liberty" is a must read for those interested in these matters.
De Jouvenal argues that establishing a floor of income beneath which none would be permitted to sink, will result in confiscatory taxation, at a level at which none could rise. Given income levels in the West, that ceiling would be found at income levels now associated with the middle class.
De Jouvenal notes the Christian imperative of charity, but is loath to consider its modern implications. Moreover, he fails to explicate the Aristotelian conception of natural right so integral to this argument. My friend, a special education administrator in Cheyenne, Wyoming, believes that $753 billion dollars of student loans should be ‘forgiven.’ An idea that is akin to celebrating vandalism, insofar as it subsidizes illegality, and transfers costs to working adults.
This book is stimulating. However, Murray Rothbard is a more steadfast source of philosophical wisdom with respect to these matters. His "Ethics of Liberty" is a must read for those interested in these matters.
October 7, 2019
Se ha convertido en un hábito moderno llamar "justo" a cualquier cosa entendida como emocionalmente deseable.
La redistribución no es tanto una redistribución del rico al pobre cuanto una redistribución de poder del individuo al Estado.
La clase social que forma la opinión pública también es la que define los criterios sociales según los cuales un nivel de vida es indecentemente alto o bajo.
La redistribución no es tanto una redistribución del rico al pobre cuanto una redistribución de poder del individuo al Estado.
La clase social que forma la opinión pública también es la que define los criterios sociales según los cuales un nivel de vida es indecentemente alto o bajo.
August 28, 2022
A very short read, but it does not live up to its title, and the mathematics that is presented is not explored or developed at all, even in the appendix.
I can't recommend this one, even to casual libertarians or those thinking of exploring libertarian ideas or philosophy.
I can't recommend this one, even to casual libertarians or those thinking of exploring libertarian ideas or philosophy.
December 30, 2022
No es perfecto. No ofrece soluciones ni identifica culpables, solamente diagnostica y no siempre de forma acertada; pero presenta preguntas y argumentos muy relevantes y valientes. Muera el PSOE, muera Hezpaña.
March 3, 2015
Slim little volume doing just what the title suggests: examining the ethics of redistribution. This is something most people take for granted in the affirmative--so inculturated we are to mass education and the media. The author shows, however, that it is much more problematic than first meets the eye.
October 22, 2008
This is one of the books that helped me better explain my empirical observations of life behind the iron curtain. Like most of Jouvenel's books it is fascinating to find words written so long ago resonate so true today.
June 27, 2021
Un libro molto interessante, anche se per certi versi un po' datato, forse in alcuni passaggi si sente che fa riferimento ad un societàdiversa dalla nostra. Però non si può negare che il principio di base e la sua spiegazione non hanno affatto perso mordente.
Read
September 23, 2010"ETHICS OF REDISTRIBUTION, THE by BERTRAND DE JOUVENEL (1990)"
January 22, 2011
Putting this one back on the shelf. Not quite what I was looking for.
March 30, 2016
A great pair of lectures of the problems of redistributionist economics (read socialism).
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews