Whatever the merits of ihis kind of hard sell, this collection, uneven as it is, certainly succeeds in reflecting the wide range of Bauer's concerns. It is divided into three parts. The first, consisting of two essays, is largely concerned with debunking current views on inequality and social stratification. The second part explores between the West and the Third World in nine loosely connected essays, of which the first (ch 9) is a cogent exposition and critique of recent writings on the population problem—and is probably the best piece in the entire collection^ there is also a rather interesting discussion of the problems involved in commodity stabilisation arrangements (ch 8); the rest is largely concerned with venting Bauer's familiar views on the deleterious effects of of aid (chs 5-7) though he also provides in between what amounts to an apologia for Western imperialism (chs 4 and 9) a superficial explanation of Hong Kong's economic success (ch 10) and an attack on the African political scientist Ali Mazrui (ch 11).
The third and final part (chs 12-15) is the weakest in the collection, and consists of rather general reflections on the state of economics, which are only parenthetically related to the main theme of the book.
II
Let us begin, then, by considering the arguments against what he calls "'the unholy grail of equality" that Bauer takes up in Part One, for they seem to be central to the case that he develops in subsequent essays.
At the outset, there is a difficulty, for Bauer asserts what one would expect him to demonstrate: "The precise causes of differences in income and wealth are complex and various.... But in substance such differences result from people's widely differing aptitudes and motivations and also to some extent from chance circumstances. Some people are gifted, hard working, ambitious and enterprising, or had far-sighted parents, and they are therefore more likely to become well-off." (p8). .
What justification—moral or empirical—does Bauer give for the claim that income differences are fair because they reflect differences in abilities, or the outcome of voluntary arrangements through the market? The initial assertion is, to be sure, repeated a number of times in the text in different guises, but nowhere does a coherent argument in support of this view emerge. Yet, had Bauer been more rigorous he might have employed a procedural historical justification for income
