Resource Bundle Analysis

Roemer engages Rawls’s idea of a “resource bundle” with Nozick’s, Sen’s, Dworkin’s, and Arneson’s theories, shying away from evaluating microcosms of inequality on a realistic scale.
Roemer predicates the basis of his argumentation upon Rawls's broad assumption that an ideal society, providing resource bundles of food, education, and housing to all, will result in people with a self-driven “conception of welfare.” The problem with Rawls’s theory lies in the assumption that once given the supplies to live, people will have the motivation to work towards self-sustainability. Systems in place, similar to but not exactly mimicking his theory, provide a more practical scope on ways to advance and solidify his ideas. Drawing attention to the United States, a microcosm for food stamp, housing, and welfare programs in similar societies can reveal some of the flaws underlying the broadness of Rawls’s theory. Such programs, although beneficial to many, also result in some refusing to work to achieve self-sustainability. In 2013, a study by the Cato Institute identified that in many states, people derive more income from government-provided assistance than they possibly could from working, resulting in some quitting their jobs, staying perpetually reliant on welfare (Tanner). In the United States perspective, the “bundles” provided require strengthened work
Although Dworkin refutes Rawls’s claim, his example of an unequal insurance model serves little relation to the idea of providing “resource bundles.” Likewise, an example of “brute luck” among those receiving “resource bundles” appropriately solidifies Dworkin’s case against Rawls’s theory. To retain consistency, using the example of government-provided housing in America provides perspective into how structural racism holds African Americans