Sophie’s paper
Helpful readers have found online a copy of Sophie Elliott’s paper, mentioned in the media this morning. The foreword is pretty special and moving, so I reproduce it here:
In February 2007, we shared the teaching in an upper level Microeconomics seminar at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. Sophie Elliott was one of the students. Sophie’s scholarly term paper, ‘Why measure inequality? A discussion of the concept of equality’, presented here in slightly abridged form, was easily the best essay on equity and equality either of us had ever read.
Sophie completed her degree in November 2007 and was on the brink of an exciting career. And then we learned of Sophie’s death. Sophie died on January 9th 2008, just one day before she was supposed to travel to Wellington to take up her first position at the New Zealand Treasury. She was brutally attacked and stabbed to death in her
own bedroom.In her paper, Sophie examined the contrasting viewpoints and analyzes of a dozen of the main thinkers – both philosophers and economists – who are today concerned with equity as a fundamental value in society, and indicated at many points, gently but firmly, what she herself believes. We found Sophie’s essay stunningly to-the-point, thoughtful and mature.
Jean-Yves Duclos, editor of the Journal of Economic Inequality, wrote to one of us about Sophie’s paper in these terms: ‘It is a remarkable piece of research for such a young person. In just a few paragraphs, the paper is able to strike right to the core of welfare economics and to grasp with many of its complex philosophical and ethical issues. Elliott certainly had a beautiful mind’.
In Sophie’s paper, the reader will find many questions to ponder. Should a policy be about the people who deserve to be treated equally rather than those who are treated equally? How should we treat benevolence in society? Do we wish to make people in society equal in terms of the things that do generate welfare, or in terms of the things that should generate welfare? Does the prosperity of one person negatively affect the fortunes of some others? What do we mean by equal opportunities, and by equal reward for equal effort? Are market-generated outcomes necessarily unfair? If so, is the lack of compensation for this unfairness morally wrong?
We have both felt Sophie’s loss, in this awful calamity, very deeply indeed. We are proud to have been her teachers and we commend her inspirational essay to the readers of Oxonomics.
There was something magical about Sophie Elliott – everybody who knew her felt it, and everybody who knew her loved her, all but for one person. Rest in peace, Sophie.
What a wonderful tribute to her. And such a nice counter to the days of vileness from he who shall not be named.
A small extract from the paper itself. This will probably only appeal to economists!
Horizontal equity is conventionally defined as the principle that equals should be treated equally, and vertical equity, that unequals should be treated unequally. Galbiati and Vertova (2008) focus on horizontal equity, arguing that the above definition is flawed, as policies, by default, treat those they define as ‘equals’ equally.
The correct assessment of the horizontal inequity caused by a policy is in the policy’s choice of relevant characteristics1 that determine the ‘equals’.
If these characteristics are seen to be normatively inappropriate in reference to the intended effect of the policy, then the policy is said to be horizontally inequitable to some degree. That is, if those who should be treated as equals under the policy, in that they share relevant characteristics, are treated as unequals by the policy rule, the policy is considered unfair under this definition.
It is as Peter Westen states in his book on equality (see Westen, 1990): the presumption of equality is that people should be treated equally in the absence of good reasons for treating them unequally, such as a difference in relevant characteristics.
Lambert and Yitzhaki (1995) explain that horizontal and vertical equity serve different purposes. The former is an idea relating to justice, helping to ‘ensure that the law does not serve anybody’s self-interest’. The latter is a principle that prevents warped applications of the former, and, if satisfied, is sufficient to implement the former.
Consider a country with two types of people, those who love ducks and those who hate ducks. If the government gives everyone three ducks each, it has treated all the ducklovers equally, and all the duck-haters equally, thus satisfying the principle of horizontal equity when given its conventional definition.
However it does not satisfy the principle of vertical equity, as the two distinct groups are treated the same in relation to a characteristic that must be considered relevant in the distribution of ducks. Distributing the ducks in this apparently even-handed way actually results in an unfair outcome; hence we have an example of an equal distribution that does not achieve its fundamental aim of equity.
This illustrates the importance of considering both horizontal and vertical equity in theories of equality.
The full paper is only 10 pages, and as I said very interesting for those who are into economics.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Haha, that’s such a Sophie thing to write.
(P.S. Sophie didn’t really like birds much, with the exception of ducks which she loved!)
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Giving welfare to people irrespective of income is an example of Sophie’s ducks. It would seem she rather elegantly does not like that. I am glad this paper has surfaced. A nice tribute to her very clever thinking.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Coincidentally, her paper is quite relevant to some other issues in the news at the moment. Phill Goff should certainly read it!!
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Very interesting, especially when applied to ‘universal’ welfare (the family benefit in the past, and now the pension ). There is no doubt ‘Universal’ distribution exacerbates social inequality by supporting the poor and added to the wealth of the rich but what is to be done about it? Successive Governments have taken us down the road of buying votes with welfare distribution. This practice reached a peak with ‘working for families’; there has been a paradigm shift to the extent that most of the population of New Zealand seem to consider they have a right to some hand out; the recent Burgess case was a perfect example. The Left consider they can depend on the vote of the ‘takers’, so why not create more of them? I like the distinction drawn in the paper between ‘horizontal equity’ and ‘vertical equity’. Thankyou for printing the excerpt – I could not download the original (cookie problems).
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
What would she have done if she only had two ducks; one being a Mallard and the other a lame duck?
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Erm…. Can we not use the murdered girl’s paper for political point scoring for a week or maybe two, people?
I think it is a very well written paper though, and it really brings home how intelligent this woman was before that murderer did what he did.
On the off chance anyone who knew Sophie reads this – all my best to all who knew her.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I know it is a bit of a side issue but the way that TVNZ and TV3 went after Weatherston’s parents after the trial finished disgusted me.
They seem like good people who were NOT on trial, they committed NO crime yet our low life scum media insisted on filming them as they left the court.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Thanks. Her family will most likely read this thread at some stage.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I imagine that if Sophie were still alive she would be thrilled with the prospect of having her work become part of the social/political debate that must be had if NZ is to progress economically. She was an academic that aspired to be part of decision making at the highest level.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Great paper
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Trout – I agree with you. There’s a big difference between discussing the issues in it though, and using it as cheap point scoring. Which is why I didn’t mod down your comment, you actually looked at the issues rather than:
“Giving welfare to people irrespective of income is an example of Sophie’s ducks. It would seem she rather elegantly does not like that. I am glad this paper has surfaced. A nice tribute to her very clever thinking.”
Hope that clears up what I meant.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Fair enough. NZ is surely the poorer for the loss of a person of such ability and promise.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Her outstanding academic ability and the fact that she was leaving for a very desirable job may explain her murder the day before she left – she appears to have been getting the academic recognition and opportunities that Mr Weatherston seems to have thought should rightly be his.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“On the off chance anyone who knew Sophie reads this – all my best to all who knew her”.
This from me also.
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
DA VINCI MODE…You pose a very profound conundrum. I will spend the night considering it…..Actually the bit about the ducks was all I understood.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I’m an economics student currently at the University of Otago, and I just want to say that it is marvellous to be able to read a paper from such a great student who came out of the same faculty as I am in now. I am sooo sorry for the family and for Sophie and what happened to her. Me and my Whanau absolutely detest Mr evil weirdo Weatherston to the nth degree, and as a concurrent law student I want to say I thought the entire defence was about as strong and worthy as a wet tissue. Recession or no recession as a soon to be lawyer I would not have taken on Weatherston’ case in good conscious. It made my skin crawl listening to his little laughs and mincing reminisces from his 5th form maths class. Thankyou DPF for putting up this paper, in my time at university this is the first time I have been able to read a paper from another student from economics, and I am going to spend a lot of time learning from it, because Sophie had a wonderful concise expression I would like to copy if I can, although I’m a few years younger. To her family, you are in our prayers. Chur.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Well, as a father of daughters about the same age, and as an economics graduate from long ago, I have to admit something. There have been some tears welling up in my eyes through all this business at times, but reading this paper (I found it a few hours before DPF posted it) made one of them fall out. And if you knew me you would doubt that was possible.
I hope the reported bounty on this fellow’s life does not get paid out, but it is interesting that feelings run deep over this case in places you might not expect. Seems he has transgressed some pretty fundamental values.
Brave parents, both sides, by the way. An example for the rest of us, but I know the hurt will be there forever, and feel for them … profoundly.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“I hope the reported bounty on this fellow’s life does not get paid out, but it is interesting that feelings run deep over this case in places you might not expect. Seems he has transgressed some pretty fundamental values.”
One of the best comments I’ve read on this case so far. Couldn’t agree more. Says a lot about both Weatherston, and the fundamental decency of the vast bulk of people in this country.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Thankyou David, as you point out the foreword is a very moving tribute to Sophie and you have made it available to us something main stream media haven’t as far as I am aware. I also pay tribute to your commitment to defending Sophie’s reputation and protesting the unfairness that has been inflicted on her and her family throughout and at the conclusion of this tragic affair.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Some of the sources Sophie lists are evolved from what is referred to as Law and Economics. Richard A. Posner famously quoted that the ‘individual is the best determinant of their own welfare.’ This is an adaptation of the negligence formula from US v Carroll Towing.
The Learned Hand formula in that case has often been quoted:
Probability of Loss* Extent of loss > Burden to prevent loss
This has been adapted by many economists for the risk of committing a crime versus the penalty for that crime. In the case of how the justice system has failed Sophie Elliot, because the punishment is not the same as the severity of the crime, Dr Weatherston will always have surplus welfare over his victim. The probability of being caught was only a reduction in sentence from murder to manslaughter. The accused always has the incentive to waste the time of the courts in an attempt to benefit for they are not paying the transaction costs of the crime. If they do pay for their lawyer, the cost is less than the benefits from the chance of succeeding in a reduction in sentence.
Society also loses from needing to pay the costs of imprisonment, the loss of taxes that Weatherston and Elliot could have paid (including a loss of potenatial improvement to overall productivity resulting in a deadweight loss of efficiency) and the costs of rehabilitation when Weatherston is released.
The trial also gained awareness of the law (that was properly applied in the court) but will be changed resulting in a loss of efficiency gains. The cost of the trial will will only add further costs as enough legal precedents accumulate to create consistency the new law’s application.
Only one person wins in this scenario – the convicted. The only efficient punishment is the death penalty with the sentence carried out after a decent stint on death row.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
“There have been some tears welling up in my eyes through all this business at times,” ” And if you knew me you would doubt that was possible.”
Me too Rod. For some reason the death of this young lady has affected more than most. What a waste. My condolences to her family I am so very sorry and my thoughts and love are with you.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
To the family of this girl, kia kaha.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
A grand paper – an intelligent woman who would have never expected the country would be so depeely shattered by the loss of her life.
This paper will now be a part of valued history.
It is no wonder that Sophies father spoke so fondly of his intelligent and adorable daughter last night on Close up. Amazing parents – amazing family – a fine example to us all!
July 24th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Great paper – Sophie writes well. I’m sure she would have been a great asset to Treasury and to New Zealand. My condolences to her family. This is not something that any family should have to go through.
I have been following this case with some interest. Like Clayton and Sophie, I grew up in Dunedin and went on to attend Otago University.
Dunedin can be a very cloying, insulating place, particularly for post graduate students at Otago, and most especially for those who were born and bred there as well.
It is easy to slip in a role of being a “big fish in a small pond” at Otago University and the arrogance that this can create; the university dominates the town with no real other competition on an intellectual level as one can find in, for instance, Wellington or Auckland.
I am interested in Clayton’s 9 months in Wellington in 2003, when he worked for Treasury, and that he returned to home to Dunedin early – could he not handle being away his home town and an aura of comfortability?
Sophie was moving on. Good on her. Clayton, unfortunately like many others that I know of in Dunedin, wasn’t able to.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:18 am
> The only efficient punishment is the death penalty with the sentence carried out after a decent stint on death row.
Well, only an economist could come to that conclusion. What about the cost of death row and what purpose would be served by putting someone on death row?
If Weatherston is given 20 years, Dame Sian Elias has reminded us that keeping him in prison will cost taxpayers almost $2 million. And one day he will be released. I would like to think that with that kind of sum being spent on him, he’ll leave prison a changed individual and won’t pose a risk to society. Maybe I am an optimist, or am I just unrealistic?
July 24th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Who is posting all the thumbs down on the early responses? Does Weatherston have internet access?
July 24th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Yes, how dare they desecrate the de facto Sophie Shrine that this thread has become.
Would be interesting to see how the thread would have gone if she was a social work graduate. Differently, methinks.
[DPF: I think anyone who got first class honours, had overseas professors rave about them and their work, and had a professional journal editor rave about the quality of their work would be held in high esteem, regardless of whether it is economics or chemistry or some other subject]
July 24th, 2009 at 11:44 am
[DPF: I think anyone who got first class honours, had overseas professors rave about them and their work, and had a professional journal editor rave about the quality of their work would be held in high esteem, regardless of whether it is economics or chemistry or some other subject]
Perhaps. Let’s hope we never have to find out, lest another Princess Diana-esque tribute thread pops up.
[DPF: Princess Diana died because her bodyguard drove too fast after drinking. She was not brutally murdered, and then blamed for the murder.]
July 24th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
What an absolute tragedy to lose someone with Sophie’s insights. I have read the full paper (yes, I’m an economist) and it contains some elegant challenges to the way welfare structuring could/should be measured. Not all of it is comfortable to either the right or left in politics.
But there is one insight which parhaps helps explain the difference between Sophie’s view of the world, and that of her killer. Here is the quote, and I leave it to you to judge who is who. Sophie was discussing how to see the overall concept of “success” and how do we measure it.
“…one wonders about anyone’s ability to summarize their own success in life. There is also the complication that a person may be fooled by the illusion of success. To make this point Dworkin asks which the reader would choose, before beginning their life, between being a success in life but thinking they have failed, AND being a failure in life, but believing themselves to be a success. I would be very surprised to find a person who does not hesitate in his answer upon first hearing this question….”
July 24th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Since when did you lot care what academics say?
July 24th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
MRB, great observation. Perception and reality is often the greatest limitation to the assumed rationality of market behaviour.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:09 am
So can we add jealousy to narcissism as twin causes of her tragic murder? This certainly would add an even more sinister motive which was not even touched upon in the trial. I’d add, given the way that weasel weatherspoon acted during the trial, it would be perfectly within his overall egotistical chararcter to have this in teh back of his mind.
July 25th, 2009 at 9:36 am
[DPF: Princess Diana died because her bodyguard drove too fast after drinking. She was not brutally murdered, and then blamed for the murder.]
Irrelevant to the reasons for the gallons of saccharine oozing from this thread, but no, she actually died because her bodyguard drove the car into a pillar in a tunnel, and none of the fuckwits were wearing seatbelts.