“could only have been possible with increasingnbalance of [political] leverage, innwhich coalitions bargained to obtainnmutual privileges and to break down thenmonopolies of others.” Bauer concludesnjust the opposite: “How misleading it isnto think that the exclusion from politicalnactivity necessarily inhibits the economicnprospects of a person or group.”nThe rift leads finally to the core ofnthese authors’ focus on development,ni.e. economic equality (though surely anflexible and finely gradated hierarchynwould be a more useful concept). FornBauer, equality is the delusion of development;nindeed, its promotion oftennaeates poverty. For Loehr and Powelsonn”sustained material well-being . . . cannoccur only with distributions tendingntowards equality,” because “the degreenof efficiency in a society depends on thendegree of balance of leverage.”nHow can these views be reconciled?nOne aspect of their difference stems fromnthe place each volume assigns to politicalnand economic clusterings and to politicalnlife. If individuals are working within ansystem which offers no scope for politics,nthen everyone does begin from the samenposition and has at his disposal the samenmeans for advancement. But if institutionsnand groups exist which vie with onenanother politically, then individuals maynhave very a»^^«