Competitions, Prizes, and Economic Desert

Opposition to inequality is sometimes expressed in terms of desert: The poor deserve more than they get and/or the rich deserve less. This paper provides an analysis and defense of such claims. The central idea is that economic rewards in market economies are prizes, and as such, they are deserved to the extent that the complex message they send is fitting. Making good on this idea involves generating a general account of what prizes are: Prizes are public signals that praise a complex set of objects, including the victor's success, their skill, and the victor themselves. Next, I use this account to argue that economic goods gained through employment constitute prizes for winning a position in a competitive job market. And finally, I develop a general account of what deserving a prize consists in, which can be used to criticize economic rewards as being out of line with desert: Prizes are deserved if, and to the degree that, the signal they send is fitting. Along the way, I also show why arguments made by T. M. Scanlon, Michael Walzer, and David Miller do not suffice to undermine the central idea. Theoretically, the paper aspires to add to our understanding of prizes, their desert, and their relevance to distributive justice. More practically, this account can help explain—and partially validate—the indignation that is sometimes felt by those who have not fared well in economic competitions.