Abstract

David Miller argues that the proper principle to govern distribution in the economy is a principle of desert and that markets (at their best) distribute to the participating agents rewards that are proportional to their respective contributions. This is explained by appeal to the notion of marginal productivity, and by the theory that perfect competition results in a distribution according to marginal contribution. Marginal product in this sense is taken to be a measure of the producer's contribution to the consumer's well-being, and so a proportionate reward is something he can be said to deserve. I discuss the relation between desert and justice and question the premise that desert is appropriate in the economic sphere. With respect to Miller's argument I claim, first, that there are several substantial and prevalent factors that cast serious doubt on the contention that the market distributes and rewards according to marginal contribution to any significant extent. Second, that marginal contribution is not a measure of contribution to well being and, therefore, it is not a morally relevant desert-basis.