Source: (2007) In Jon Miller and Rahul Kumar, ed., Reparations: Interdisciplinary Inquiries, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Pp. 176-192.

"In this chapter, I explore the role of compensation in repairing historical wrongs. I focus on the standard welfare economist's view of compensation since this seems to be the one that is most often appealed to in philosophical and legal discussions of compensation. Furthermore, the default position in such discussions, as in American tort law, is that cash is the best form of compensation, a view that accords well with the economic conception of compensation. But while cash compensation is a part of many claims of reparative justice, victims often focus on other demands. Are there good reasons for preferring other responses to historical wrongs, and if so, what are those reasons? What role, if any, should compensation play in countering the wrongs of the past?" (excerpt)