I'm trying to unpack the authors' definition of "fairness". These are the relevant sections I've found: > Fairness is not summed up in Gini coefficients of inc

I'm trying to unpack the authors' definition of "fairness". These are the relevant sections I've found: > Fairness is not summed up in Gini coefficients of income inequality, but in access to the foundational goods and services that all citizens should enjoy. > But we believe it is time to think radically about delivering fairness not by redistributing income or reforming schools, but by re-organising sectors of the economy. > The centre-left’s nostalgic attachment to redistributive taxation has faded, and all parties now increasingly problematise fairness as a matter of managing internal competition: the result is standard packages of policy remedies whose reach exceeds their grasp. > Either way, the conscience of our competitive age is about “equal opportunities” through policy remedies which, in our view, are necessary but not sufficient for a better, fairer city. > But procedural fairness does not secure substantive outcomes in high-income countries, where the proliferation of anti-discrimination policies since the 1970s has been accompanied by sharply increasing inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth. > Fairness in terms of outcomes is, of course, much harder to achieve than fairness in terms of process on social housing allocation. > Our argument is simple. If we want fairness, then we should focus on the foundational economy and reorganise these activities to make them more grounded. > We believe the emphasis needs to be shifted towards social innovation that promotes a civilised, inclusive city which performs fair outcomes in all its decisions. So far, it seems to me that authors promote a view of fairness that is about (a) opportunity, (b) access to 'foundational' goods, and (c) procedures (i.e governance). I'm not sure if they put as much emphasis on equality in terms of income and wealth.