Document Type


Publication Date



At some point in your life, you will need to allocate resources among individuals, but how should you do so? One prominent suggestion is the envy test: the envy test is satisfied when and only when no one prefers someone else’s bundle. In Part I, I explain and then reject Tom Parr’s recent attempt to justify the envy test. Yet, like Parr, I believe the envy test captures something important. Thus, in Part II, I distinguish two approaches to resource allocation. Parr’s defense of the envy test assumes what I will call an individualist approach: what matters are each individual’s preferences. In lieu of the individualist approach, I endorse the solidarity approach: what matters are everyone’s preferences. After explaining the distinction, I show that the envy test—or at least something like it—can be defended using the solidarity approach even if it cannot be defended using the individualist approach.