Mathematical models do not have moral content: it's the polemic constructed around the models that does.
Within the same context, a Kaldor-Hicks improvement is defined as a change that is either a Pareto improvement or such that: the "winners" from the change would be able to compensate the "losers" and still be better off (Kaldor criterion); and the "losers" could not afford to bribe the "winners" to prevent the change (Hicks criterion). Crucially, the compensation or bribe elements of the test for a Kaldor-Hicks improvement is a hypothetical one: the change is considered an improvement if the assessed winners' gain is greater than the assessed losers' loss, regardless of whether the change when implemented would actually involve the payment of any compensation.
Often Pareto optimality is an impairment to taking any action (see the effects of unanimous decision making in teh EU council, for instance), but then sometimes people just say "but see, it's not Pareto optimal but it is Kaldor-Hicks optimal, so it's ok, we can ignore the losers". guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
