Pierre Cloarec submitted the following post to me by email:
I wish to submit a paper that seems grievously underestimated: Elizabeth Anderson’s “How Should Egalitarians Cope with Market Risks”, Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9 (2007): 239-270. It is pretty curious since Anderson’s “What Is the Point...” has been widely discussed and since she can be otherwise viewed as a “top name”. “How Should Egalitarians...” was not even referenced on PhilPapers until yesterday (I took the liberty to add it), and Google Scholar indicates only 25 citations since the paper’s publication (as opposed to more than 1000 for the 1999 paper, and 89 for her 2010 The Imperative of Integration). Yet it is a welcome follow-up to “What Is the Point...”. She both refines the definition of luck egalitarianism, differentiating between desert-catering and responsibility-catering LE (and also partly anticipates some of the points later made by Tan’s 2008 “A Defense of LE” in J Phil), and, just as importantly, clarifies her positive account of responsibility, a point which was not crystal-clear in “What Is the Point...”. She makes clear with what she thinks responsibility is to be contrasted, security rather than luck, and provides a very interesting market-based (whether it’s compelling is another issue) rationale for this. So I believe a little more advertisement wouldn’t hurt the paper :-)
I'm a big fan of Anderson's "What is the Point of Equality?", but I have to confess, I haven't read, "How should egalitarians cope with market risks?" So, what does everyone think of the latter? Is it underappreciated?