What it means
Efficiency means getting the most from an economy's resources, while equity means sharing the results fairly, and the tradeoff claims that pushing harder on one can cost you the other. The classic statement came from economist Arthur Okun in 1975.
He pictured redistribution as a leaky bucket: moving money from rich to poor loses some along the way through taxes that discourage effort and transfers that discourage work. The mechanism runs through incentives.
High marginal tax rates can dull the reward for extra work or investment, while generous benefits can dull the pressure to take a job, so the pie shrinks as it is shared more evenly. If the tradeoff always bit hard, policy would be a grim zero-sum choice, but a generation of research has complicated the picture considerably.
IMF economists Andrew Berg and Jonathan Ostry, in influential work published in 2011, found that more equal societies tend to sustain growth spells longer. Equality, in their evidence, looked less like a drag on growth and more like a condition for its durability.
The proposed channels run both ways: extreme inequality can waste talent when poor families cannot fund education, fuel political instability, and concentrate demand in households that spend the least of each extra unit of income. That means some redistribution is not a leak but an investment, since funding health and schooling for low-income children raises their future productivity, growing the pie while sharing it.
The design of policy decides which effect dominates: a tax system that funds opportunity while preserving the reward to effort redistributes with little loss, while one that punishes marginal earnings at very high rates collects little and distorts much. The practical wisdom mirrors the research, with moderate, well-designed redistribution of opportunity usually costing little output while extremes at either end, punitive equalisation or winner-take-all pay, damage the enterprise.
For managers, the tradeoff appears inside the firm as much as in the economy. Pay structures compress or stretch incentives, and every benefits policy balances fairness among staff against the drive to reward top performance.
The debate also shapes the business environment, because minimum wages, corporate taxes and social contributions all redistribute, and their effect on hiring and investment is exactly the margin where the tradeoff is tested. It is worth holding two truths at once: incentives are real, so badly designed redistribution shrinks the pie, and inequality is costly, so ignoring fairness can shrink it too.
The honest reading of the evidence is that there is no universal tradeoff curve, only policy choices whose costs and benefits must be measured case by case. The tradeoff, in short, is a question to ask about every policy, not a verdict against every transfer.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A steep top tax rate raises little revenue as high earners restructure income, while funding only modest services. The treasury finds that a slightly lower rate with fewer loopholes raises more. The case shows how badly designed redistribution can lose more than it moves.
Example
A scholarship programme for low-income students raises both equity and future output, dodging the tradeoff. Graduates earn more and pay more tax over their careers. The cost of the programme is repaid by the wider economy over time.
Example
A firm flattens bonuses to be fair and watches its top salespeople leave for sharper incentives elsewhere. Revenue slips, and the remaining staff carry heavier targets. Management later restores a variable element, tied to team results as well as individual sales.
Formula
Calculation
Okun's leaky bucket gives a simple way to frame the idea: Amount delivered = Amount transferred x (1 - Leakage rate)
Worked example. A fictional government collects and transfers $100 million to low-income households.
- If the leakage from administration and discouraged effort is 20%, the amount delivered is $100 million x (1 - 0.20) = $80 million.
- If a better-designed programme cuts the leakage to 10%, the amount delivered is $100 million x 0.90 = $90 million.
- If part of the transfer funds schooling that raises recipients' later earnings, the lasting benefit can exceed the amount spent, and the bucket may not leak at all.
The leakage rate is not a fixed number: it depends on programme design, and measuring it is what policy debate is about. The figures here are invented to show the arithmetic.Case study
Seen in the real world.
Fictional example: Aldermere Staffing, a fictional agency, paid its recruiters almost entirely on commission, and top billers earned ten times the median. Turnover among mid performers was ruinous, and the founders worried the culture was corroding. They redesigned pay: a higher base, a team bonus, and a smaller individual commission. Individual top-end pay fell, but total placements rose within a year as mid-tier recruiters stayed and improved. The firm had traded a slice of peak incentive for broader, more durable performance, its own small answer to Okun's question.
The founders also watched for the opposite risk. They kept a meaningful individual commission so that the strongest recruiters still saw a reward for outstanding work, and they reviewed the scheme after a year to see whether any top performers had left. The illustrative result was a pay plan that was neither purely equal nor purely competitive. Aldermere accepted a small leak in peak incentive in return for a healthier bucket, and it treated the design as something to be tested and adjusted.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Assuming every redistribution shrinks the economy; well-designed investments in opportunity can expand it.
- Assuming incentives do not matter; punitive marginal rates and poorly designed benefits genuinely distort behaviour.
- Treating equity and equality as interchangeable; fairness debates often concern equal treatment, not identical outcomes.
Questions
People also ask.
Who named the equity-efficiency tradeoff?
Arthur Okun gave it its classic framing in his 1975 book Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff, with the image of the leaky bucket. The underlying tension between fairness and incentives is far older than the label.
Does research still support a strict tradeoff?
Only partly. IMF work by Berg and Ostry in 2011 found more equal societies sustain growth longer, and later research has emphasised that policy design decides whether redistribution costs output or builds it. The strict version is widely regarded as too simple.
How does this apply to business pay?
Compressed pay can feel fair but dull top performance; extreme dispersion motivates stars but corrodes teamwork. Most durable firms mix a solid base, shared rewards, and meaningful variable pay, accepting a small leak for a healthier bucket.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%