PANEL 11 / LIMITARIANISM: WHY, HOW, AND WHAT WEALTH SHOULD BE LIMITED
CONVENORS: ELENA ICARDI and NUNZIO ALÌ (University of Catania)
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected] or [email protected]
Limitarianism is a theory of distributive justice introduced by Ingrid Robeyns in 2017 in her famous piece ‘Having Too Much’. The theory proposes that no one should possess more than an upper threshold of wealth. This proposal has gained increasing attention, which is not surprising given the rising fortunes of the super-rich and the growing wealth gap between them and the rest of the population. Academic research on the subject has developed considerably in recent years. In 2023, Robeyns edited the first volume dedicated entirely to limitarianism, titled ‘Having Too Much: Philosophical Essays on Limitarianism’. Scholars have defended limitarianism on various grounds, including the meeting of urgent needs (Volacu and Dumitru 2019), political equality (Timmer 2019; Volacu 2023) non-domination (Icardi 2023), and self-respect (Neuhäuser 2023); while others suggested that the target of limitarianism should not be the absolute wealth rather the wealth inequality between the best-off and the worst-off (Harel Ben- Shahar 2019; Caranti and Alì 2021; Malleson 2023). They have also investigated the rationale of the limitarian threshold, as well as its intergenerational and ecological implications (see Robeyns 2023). Furthermore, limitarianism has been criticized from various perspectives (Halldenius 2022; Huseby 2022). Thus, in just a few years, limitarianism has developed into a comprehensive account of distributive justice.
However, some questions still need to be addressed. How does limitarianism compare to other accounts of distributive justice, such as egalitarianism or sufficientarianism? Should limitarianism be considered a redistributive or predistributive account? Which types of wealth should be subject to limitations, capital, property, income, inheritance, etc.? If limitarianism implies a tax system, what kind of top marginal tax rate should be applied above the threshold (100% as in strong limitarianism or 80% as in weak limitarianism)? Should a limitarian threshold be applied to actors other than individuals, such as business corporations? Could limitarianism be considered an appropriate distributive criterion for addressing climate justice?
The purpose of this panel is to advance research on limitarianism by addressing questions related to its distinctness. Contributions related to the following issues, although not limited to them, are hence welcome.
- Limitarianism and alternative distributive principles of justice
- Limitarian threshold(s)
- Taxing the rich
- Predistributive proposals: Property-owning democracy, Democratic Socialism, etc.
- Inheritance tax
- Business corporations
- Limitarianism at the Global level
- Limitarianism: ideal and non-ideal theories
- Limitarianism and Climate Justice
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected] or [email protected]
Limitarianism is a theory of distributive justice introduced by Ingrid Robeyns in 2017 in her famous piece ‘Having Too Much’. The theory proposes that no one should possess more than an upper threshold of wealth. This proposal has gained increasing attention, which is not surprising given the rising fortunes of the super-rich and the growing wealth gap between them and the rest of the population. Academic research on the subject has developed considerably in recent years. In 2023, Robeyns edited the first volume dedicated entirely to limitarianism, titled ‘Having Too Much: Philosophical Essays on Limitarianism’. Scholars have defended limitarianism on various grounds, including the meeting of urgent needs (Volacu and Dumitru 2019), political equality (Timmer 2019; Volacu 2023) non-domination (Icardi 2023), and self-respect (Neuhäuser 2023); while others suggested that the target of limitarianism should not be the absolute wealth rather the wealth inequality between the best-off and the worst-off (Harel Ben- Shahar 2019; Caranti and Alì 2021; Malleson 2023). They have also investigated the rationale of the limitarian threshold, as well as its intergenerational and ecological implications (see Robeyns 2023). Furthermore, limitarianism has been criticized from various perspectives (Halldenius 2022; Huseby 2022). Thus, in just a few years, limitarianism has developed into a comprehensive account of distributive justice.
However, some questions still need to be addressed. How does limitarianism compare to other accounts of distributive justice, such as egalitarianism or sufficientarianism? Should limitarianism be considered a redistributive or predistributive account? Which types of wealth should be subject to limitations, capital, property, income, inheritance, etc.? If limitarianism implies a tax system, what kind of top marginal tax rate should be applied above the threshold (100% as in strong limitarianism or 80% as in weak limitarianism)? Should a limitarian threshold be applied to actors other than individuals, such as business corporations? Could limitarianism be considered an appropriate distributive criterion for addressing climate justice?
The purpose of this panel is to advance research on limitarianism by addressing questions related to its distinctness. Contributions related to the following issues, although not limited to them, are hence welcome.
- Limitarianism and alternative distributive principles of justice
- Limitarian threshold(s)
- Taxing the rich
- Predistributive proposals: Property-owning democracy, Democratic Socialism, etc.
- Inheritance tax
- Business corporations
- Limitarianism at the Global level
- Limitarianism: ideal and non-ideal theories
- Limitarianism and Climate Justice