F.— ECONOMICS. 107 



docs Llio logic of political economy escape the consequences of its 

 connection with the higher parts of human nature. Tine most correct 

 and unbiassed economic conclusions are liable to be overruled by moral 

 considerations. This fate, too, is particularly to be apprehended for 

 arguments on the present subject. Guarding against these difficulties, 

 I propose to distinguish and to discuss separately two inquiries into 

 which the proposed question may be subdivided, according as it is 

 referred to external wealth only, or also to the attendant internal feel- 

 ing of welfare. 



2. Tlie disturbing effect of sentiment or prejudice makes itself felt 

 at the very outset of the discussion in the definition of the issue to be 

 discussed. In masculine circles the question is often dismissed with 

 the remark that the work of women never, or hardly ever, is equal to 

 that of men. The truth of this proposition will be considered later 

 (below, 14). Here it is relevant to observe that even if the proposition 

 were true the question would not be stultified. For the tei'm ' equal ' 

 is evidently not to be interpreted, for the purpose of this inquiry, as 

 identical in amount. Equality, as Aristotle says, is of two kinds, 

 numerical and proportional, meaning that the share of A is to the 

 share of B as the claim or worth (a^ia) of A is to that of B. So 

 when Adam Smith propounds a maxim in the observation of which, he 

 says, consists what is called the equality of taxation, it would be 

 trivial to object that the subjects of the State are not all equal in 

 respect of ability to contribute. Of course he meant, as he says in 

 the context, taxation ' in projiortion to their respective abilities ' ; not 

 implying that the abilities are equal. The question tlien aiises ^in 

 economics as well as in politics), What is the criterion of that worth 

 (the d^f'a) which governs distribution, according to which shares 

 are to be distributed? 'Pay in proportion to efficient output,' the 

 phrase used by the War Cabinet Committee on Industry, expresses 

 the meaning approximately. By ' equal efficient output ' may be 

 understood, in the phrase of Dr. Bowley, ' equal utility to the employer. ' 

 To the same effect others speak of equal ' productivity ' or ' productive 

 value.' With these phrases there must be understood a certain equality 

 on the side of the employee as well as on the side of the employer or com- 

 munity. Thus, when the Childi-en of Israel were compelled to gather 

 straw in the fields, the bricks which they made might have been of the 

 same utility to the taskmaster as when the raw material was obtained 

 gratis. But if the workers received the same remuneration per dozen 

 of bricks as before, we should not say that, as compared with the former 

 terms, they were receiving equal pay for equal work. Again, there 

 might be nothing to choose from the workers' point of view^ between 

 carrying a certain quantity of silver or the same weight of lead for 

 the same distance; while the employer or customer might derive a 

 much greater advantage from the transportation of lead than from that 

 of silver. If now the carriage of silver is restricted (by custom, say, 

 or favouritism) to a class defined by some attribute unconnected with 

 the value of their service (uncorrclated with speed, security, punctu- 

 ality, and so forth), the earners of lead and silver- would not be receiv- 

 ing equal pay for equal work, although each class received a pay 



