If the application of Kaldor Hicks improvement leads an enhanced balance of the shared benefits among the subjects, then it could be said that the law has raised its Pareto efficiency and it is closer to satisfy the Pareto efficiency criteria. Pareto efficiency is a condition in which the reallocation of resources is impossible to make one person better off without making other individual worse off. Thus, when a law or policy enforcement reaches a state from where no further allocation or redistribution of resources is possible to balance the benefits of the allocation between the better off and the worse off, application of Kaldor/ Hicks criterion remains impossible. This is because the intended benefits and resources of the law have been justly distributed such that the better off and the worse off are holding equal rights to the benefits of the law. This also indicates that the law has reached its Pareto efficiency criterion.
The Kaldor Hicks criterion is a precursor for the stringent conditions set by Pareto efficiency. The Kaldor Hicks criterion requires a possibility of transferring the resources from the better off to the worse off, and Pareto efficiency is reached when there is no need of such reallocation of resources. Pareto efficiency has set up stringent standards in which equivalent distribution of resources is the primary and the only criterion, but in Kaldor Hicks theory, there is a possibility of an imbalance in the distribution of resources and the criterion is met only when the better off are able to transfer the benefits of resources to the worse off. Pareto efficiency requires a state of equitable resource distribution, and Kaldor Hicks requires a possibility of transfer of resources from the surplus-holding to the deficient. Applying the Kaldor Hicks efficiency criterion to the Louisiana law that included police officers, fire fighters and paramedics under the ambit of protection from hate crime committed against them, it is certain that there is absence of a balance of power. For example, the law has been introduced to make the state intolerable towards hate crime, but on the contrary does not it give extra judicial powers to the law enforcers? Is it even morally inclined when the oppressed have no further weapon to defend irrational oppression from the powerful? In this case, existing laws were already in force that contained enhanced punishment to those who indulged in hate crime towards officers of peace, which included government officers. There really was no need to expand and amend the same law to introduce police officers, fire fighters and paramedics into its ambit. Is this amendment purposefully introduced to increase atrocious outcomes of oppression towards the black community, who have always been ignored by the white populace? Apparently, the interpretation of the law leads to such a conclusion.