Equality of outcome is a basic form of egalitarianism which seeks to reduce or eliminate differences between individuals or households in a society.

In theory, equality of outcome can be contrasted with equal opportunity, though many proponents of the latter use measures of the former to judge success. To the extent that inequalities can be passed form one generation to another through gifts and wealth inheritance, it is unclear that equality of opportunity for children can be achieved without greater equality of outcome for parents.

A progressive taxation system is likely to increase equality of outcome, and so is a welfare state. However, these will tend only to reduce social inequality, not eliminate it entirely. A much further reduction in social inequality is the goal of most forms of socialism.

Greater equality of outcome is likely to reduce relative poverty, leading to a more cohesive society, though it may damage incentives to work harder. Some critics believe that the standard of living of the poorest in absolute terms is more important than their relative position; others disagree with the concept of equality of outcome on philosophical grounds.

John Rawls, in his A Theory of Justice, developed a "second principle of justice" that economic and social inequalities can only be justified if they benefit all of society, especially its most disadvantaged members. Furthermore, all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally. For example, it is only justified that a doctor make more money than a grocery clerk insofar as if this were not the case, insufficient numbers of people would train to be doctors, resulting in an unacceptable decline in the availability of medical care.

See also

• Income inequality metrics