understood on political economy grounds either (Profeta 2003). The beneficiaries are few
(usually not more than ten per cent of voters) and supposedly already in favor of the right-
wing governments which made the job. One is thus forced to see this change as an ideological
signal consistent with the various currents of though which e.g. from Locke to Nozik and Bu-
chanan allege the existing of some “natural” or “implicit constitutional” limits to the power to
tax. This stream of thinking about fiscal and social justice is however very questionable (e.g.
Bernardi 2002a) and certainly not new. It has been revived by the recent diffusion of right-
wing ideas and governments. As usual, some economists tried to refresh an old idea, whose
essence dates back to Aristotle (5th century B.C.).14
Horizontal equity was, as ever, largely forgotten and usually did not cross the traditional
border of adjustments in fiscal treatment of household or of different kinds of workers (Gan-
dullia 2003). Within these boundaries a widespread innovation was however the more favor-
able regime granted to the aged and disabled people. The allowances for dependent parents
also were widely augmented but the increase was substantial only in very few countries.
Elsewhere they were dispersed among a largest number of minute benefits. The excess burden
on single worker households remained almost anywhere under-corrected, the exception being
the France’s well known case.
3. Reforms to enhance growth and to strengthen fairness within European
countries
3.1. Reforms to enhance growth
When fiscal burden began to increase, public finance scientists became worried about its pos-
sible negative effects on growth. The first 1927 pioneering inquiry by the Colwyn Committee
(Steve 1976) was however reassuring, at least regarding to labor supply. In the 1950s and
1960s the western countries’ fast growth and declining unemployment rate pushed the topic
14 We here are making reference to the diffuse “entitlement based view” criterion of social justice, particularly
when the latter is combined with social mobility, also referred to as equality of opportunity. In such a case some
even argue that inequality in income due to differences in ability, talent and hard work, might not only be con-
sidered as a factor not to be compensated for, but may also be viewed as positive good (see e. g. Johnson and
Reed 1996), among other things implying that the support for redistribution should be lower (Benabou and Ok
2001).
10