Final answer:
Greater income equality from redistribution can be associated with concave or Rawlsian social welfare functions which prioritize income equality or the welfare of the least advantaged, while a utilitarian function seeks to maximize overall utility which may or may not result in equality.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question involves the concept of distributive justice and social welfare functions within the field of economics. Greater income equality through redistribution can be better understood by looking at different social welfare functions, such as concave, Rawlsian, and utilitarian. A concave social welfare function, represents a society that highly values income equality and would prefer to transfer income from the rich to the poor even if it means a loss in economic efficiency. In contrast, a Rawlsian social welfare function emphasizes that redistributions should maximize the welfare of the least advantaged under the condition of just savings principle and fair equality of opportunity.
A utilitarian social welfare function would aim for a distribution that maximizes overall happiness or utility, which could lead to more spread out distribution if additional income for the poor increases total utility more than the same income for the rich. However, utilitarianism doesn't guarantee equality by itself; it depends on the utility functions of the individuals. When considering whether greater income equality emerges from redistribution without distorting the utility possibility frontier (UPF), an argument can be made for either concave or Rawlsian approaches, but the Rawlsian approach is particularly focused on the well-being of the least advantaged.