 As Elster points out, \(S\) would be better off if they withdrew with their per capita assets, and R would be worse off. Thus, group \(R\) exploits \(S\). Yet, this appears to be the wrong result. The intuitive result to such cases is that the interaction between the groups isn’t of the right sort for it to count as a case of exploitation. It appears that we need something like a domination condition to qualify the kinds of behaviour that are appropriately described as exploitation. If one assumes that exploitation is a purely distributive phenomenon, then Roemer’s account, sans domination fails. Indeed, it is unclear how cases like Elster’s could be handled by tweaking the distributive conditions alone.