社会分配法的价值范畴分析

分配正义作为社会分配法的基本价值范畴,是一个由平等、自由、公平、效率等要素性价值目标构成价值体系。但是,在不同国家的特定社会经济条件下,分配法律制度的主导价值追求和目标排序是有明显差异的。在分配法律制度中,分配正义将通过基本原则这一价值载体来确认和指导法律调整分配关系的目标定位和路径选择。     

The Effect of Distributive Justice on Willingness to Pay for Municipality Child Care: An Extension of the GEF Hypothesis

Public-goods dilemmas are characterized by conflicts between self-interest and the welfare of a group or society at large. Research has identified several factors that enhance cooperation in such dilemmas. However, less is known about how concern for distributive justice affects willingness to contribute in asymmetric public-goods dilemmas. To test the hypothesis that contributions to a common resource is related to perceived fairness, experiments were performed to investigate willingness to pay to the social service of child care in hypothetical societies. Experiment 1 aimed at replicating a previous survey study (Biel et al., 1997). Experiments 2 and 3 were extensions. In all three experiments subjects were asked to indicate how fair they considered different distributions of the quality of child care provided by their municipality. These distributions corresponded to the principles of equality, equity, and need. University students (32, 48, and 32 in the three experiments, respectively) served as subjects. Ratings of perceived fairness were positively related to willingness to pay. Other factors also positively related to willingness to pay included ability to pay, personal need, expected payment from others, and the number of households who had to contribute in order to maintain the quality. Furthermore, decreasing municipality size increased willingness to pay.     

How Is Criminal Justice Related to the Rest of Justice?

Are principles of criminal justice derived from a broader conception of justice, or does criminal justice involve some of its own distinctive principles such that it is not—for example—an aspect of distributive justice? Examining considerations regarding luck and desert provides an illuminating approach to this issue. The notion of desert has largely been excised from a great deal of recent political theorizing, and in particular, it has been eliminated from many influential conceptions of distributive justice. It is widely held that the pervasiveness of luck renders desert inappropriate to contexts of distributive justice, and incompatible with the freedom and equality of persons in a just political community. Should considerations of desert also have a minimal role in criminal justice—where they seem to still be important? Are considerations of desert in the context of criminal justice consistent with persons being free and equal participants in a just political community? How are principles of criminal justice related to principles of distributive justice and political justice in an overall just society? Many scholars agree that criminal justice presupposes an adequately just society. Still, that leaves open just how criminal justice relates to justice overall. That is the present topic.     

作为“中介”的“复合平等”——沃尔泽对罗尔斯分配正义理论的批判及其限度

沃尔泽认为,罗尔斯通过＂原初状态设置＂所演绎出的＂正义二原则＂只是一种实现通常之＂简单平等＂的分配正义原则,无法解决由诸多领域所构成之社会的分配正义问题。因而基于对西方世界分配现状的观察及其人性观,沃尔泽提出了＂复合平等＂的分配正义理论。事实上,只有罗尔斯的＂正义二原则＂才能有效实现社会的分配正义。因此,沃尔泽的分配正义理论实际上只是深刻理解罗尔斯＂正义二原则＂的＂过渡理论＂或＂中介＂,而不是对后者的根本性超越。     

Bread and roses: Justice and the distribution of financial and socioemotional rewards in organizations

Two studies tested the hypothesis that organizational decision makers attempt to counterbalance contribution-based distributions of financial/material rewards (a “merit” system that creates monetary inequality) with need- and equality-based allocations of socioemotional rewards, in effect allocating “roses” in lieu of more “bread”. Experiment 1 had a two-factor design (Reward Type × Magnitude of Income Inequality); 67 subjects were given a managerial in-basket exercise in which they expressed their preferences for a variety of distributive justice rules for seven different types of rewards. Experiment 2 (N=39) had the same design, with a stronger manipulation of magnitude of inequality. Results of the two experiments were consistent with the counterbalancing hypothesis, irrespective of magnitude of income inequality; financially related rewards (e.g., profit sharing, office space, company cars) were distributed with more emphasis on contribution rules (i.e., performance, status), while more socioemotional rewards (e.g., help for an employee's spouse, friendliness) were allocated with more emphasis on equality among individuals, equality across groups, and personal need.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.     

Means and Capabilities in the Discussion of Distributive Justice*

Abstract. Dworkin's equality of resources can be interpreted as a proposal that integrates distributive criteria taken from both equality of means and equality of capabilities, and overcomes the risks of subjectivism, overrigidity and perfectionism inherent in theories of welfare, means and capabilities respectively. This can be achieved by concentrating on arrangements of justice working within the parameter of equality of resources that equalize capabilities at a level of minima, thus avoiding the perfectionist risk and, once the threshold that ensures autonomous subjects is passed, ruled by criteria taken from theories of means. In such a task, the concept of moral person will be used as the criterion for determining the threshold of autonomy, and not only will it allow for the discrimination between the different circumstances that make the application of distributive criteria possible, but it will also specify the circumstances in which it is possible to attribute responsibility to an agent.     

The political development of the Hill-Burton program: a case study in distributive policy

The Hill-Burton program offers a rare opportunity to study a distributive health policy from its adoption to its elimination. This study reveals that the political dynamics of the policy changed over time. It concludes by observing that interest group influence on distributive health policies may only be decisive when circumstances permit. Those circumstances include the involvement of powerful elected officials and the degree of consensus among policy experts about the need for the policy and the appropriateness of its objectives.     

Economic justice in later life: A Canadian perspective

A view of distributive or economic justice is presented. Economic justice can best be achieved through the construction and administration of social policies that promote equality of condition and opportunity such that people are able to achieve equitable outcomes based on their needs and the community's assessment of their contributions. A discussion of the income security situation of older Canadians provides an empirical vehicle for illustrating this view. The point is made that before economic justice can prevail social policies must be developed such that current levels of structured inequality are significantly moderated. Equity will be realized only when there is a shift in policy-making such that claims of citizenship take precedence over those claims based on the rights of property.     

Equality and differentiation: Effects of group structure on allocations

Two studies using vignettes explore some conditions under which equity, equality, and need as allocation rules are taken into account by an outside allocator. Independent variables include information about success or failure of a work group, level of morale of the group, relative contributions of work group members, responsibility for outcome, and influence of one individual on others. Results suggest that differentiation based on both equity and need results from a focus on individual deserving while equality among status equals results from focus on group level factors. An interaction between outcome and contribution appears when group level factors are included; these effects also appear when there are two rather than only one target person differing from the rest of a group; an overreward effect depends on attributions of responsibility for outcome; and an influential member is seen as deserving even if a low contributor. No gender differences were found.     

Social position,ideology, and distributive justice

This paper addresses two important questions regarding distributive justice. First we ask whether people use standards or principles of distributive justice regarding the allocation of income. The study confirms our expectation that there are at least two principles, viz., the merit and the need principle. Our data show that there is no generally held consensus about the applicability of these two principles. Second, we looked for explanations to explain variations in adherence to these principles. The literature suggests five different theses: 1. self-interest; 2. ideology; 3. enlightenment; 4. historical shift; and 5. gender. Results provide qualified support for the Theses 1, 2 and 4. Class, ideology, and age affect the preferences for the principles of justice. Further elaboration suggests the data point to a specific version of the self-interest thesis, viz., the underdog thesis. Theses 3 and 5 are not confirmed. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

An Integrative Perspective on Social Justice: Distributive and Procedural Fairness Evaluations of Positive and Negative Outcome Allocations

This paper presents a theoretical framework for the integration of distributive and procedural justice in positive and negative outcome allocations. The framework consists of seven basic assumptions, seven propositions, and seven groups of interrelated hypotheses. The expected outcome offers a coherent program for future justice research based on the realization that distributive and procedural aspects of fairness cannot be meaningfully treated (1) in isolation from one another, and (2) without taking into account the valence of the allocated outcome. The framework should also reveal the need to reassess existing distributive and procedural justice study conclusions that neglected to examine the interactive effects of the allocation outcome (distribution) and the procedure and the outcome valence.     

Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction: A Test of Three Competing Models

Using nationally representative data, we test three theories about distributive and procedural justice and their relation to job satisfaction. Our results support the group-value model more than the personal outcomes model by showing that procedural justice is a more important predictor of job satisfaction than is distributive justice. Furthermore, although other research has supported the psychological contract model by showing that experiences with downsizing alter how procedural justice and distributive justice are related to organizational commitment, we find that downsizing does not alter their relationship with job satisfaction.     

Political Ideology,Perceived Threat,and Justice Towards Immigrants

In multiethnic societies, issues of justice and fairness have become the focus of intense public debate. Although current psychological theories of distributive and procedural justice concentrate on multiple normative rules that guide allocation decisions, there is little research that focuses on the particular relationship between immigrants as recipients and members of the host society as allocators. In the present study Germans were asked about their opinions as to what Turkish immigrants in Germany deserve or are entitled to and to which degree they pose a threat to German culture. Political orientation of the allocator turns out to be an important predictor of how distributive and procedural justice concerns are evaluated. Both conservatives and liberals exhibit a different conception of what counts as distributive justice. With regard to procedural justice, however, liberals and conservatives did not differ much. Moreover, perceived threat to German culture is significantly related to distributive justice but not to procedural justice.     

Understanding gender differences in distributive and procedural justice

Gender differences in treatment and in judgments of distributive and procedural justice were examined. Three hundred nine litigants who had been involved in arbitrated auto negligence lawsuits responded to exit surveys. Two mechanisms by which gender might influence justice perceptions were explored. First, we examined whether a “chivalry bias” might be operating, in which the procedures systematically favor women over men. If such biases occur, women might feel they had been treated more fairly because of egocentric biases. Results provided only modest support for the chivalry bias. While women received slightly better awards and perceived somewhat more control than men, these differences had no effect on perceptions of distributive or procedural justice. Second, we examined whether men and women differ systematically in the factors they use as indicators of distributive and procedural justice. On the basis of group-value theory we predicted that women might place more emphasis on standing or on outcome favorability. The study revealed that men and women did differ in how they defined distributive justice, with women placing more emphasis on their perceived standing and on their perceptions of the favorability of their outcomes. There were no substantial gender differences in how procedural justice was defined. Results are interpreted in terms of how women might be responding to insecurity about facing a justice system historically dominated by men. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Prospects for Distributive Justice Theory

Theoretical progress is essential to the viability of any scientific subdiscipline. Ever since a growth spurt in the 1980s, however, and despite a very active research enterprise, distributive justice theory has developed very little. Our approach is first to discuss the role that theory plays in disciplinary growth. After noting the indicators of stagnation in distributive justice areas, we identify key problems with the way distributive justice theories are constructed and evaluated. Specifically, little attention is paid to the clear definition and consistent use of theoretical terms, or to the construction of explicit logical arguments from which empirical hypotheses may be derived. Weaknesses in these areas all but prohibit the evolution of improved theories over time. We conclude with a set of evaluative criteria that, if applied collectively by members of the field, would optimize the chances for theoretical progress. Ultimately this also would lead to more efficient empirical tests and better-informed practical applications of distributive justice theories.     

论分配关系中的法律

分配作为一种经济现象与法律有着密切的关系。法律在分配关系的产生、变动和消灭过程中发挥着重要作用。法律介入分配关系具有层次性和协调性,包括宪法、民商法、行政法和经济法等在内的不同法律部门,都从各自的角度调整着分配关系,共同维护着一个国家的社会分配秩序。     

Social Justice and Moral Reasoning: An Empirical Integration of Two Paradigms in Psychological Research

Distributive and procedural justice are of central importance to past and current theories of the psychology of moral development and the social psychology of justice. In order to explicate the relationships among theories, participants responded to both a measure of moral reasoning and a measure of 15 various justice criteria. Analyses showed that each schema of moral reasoning was significantly predicted by different concerns about social justice. Furthermore, individuals' judgments about justice were best represented by four factors, offering a broader definition of justice in relation to moral schemas. The findings were consistent with Kohlbergian theory; moral reasoning appears to proceed from concerns about self-interest to distributive fairness to procedural justice.     

The Social Context of Responses to Injustice: Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors

Whether individuals evaluate a distribution of outcomes to be unfair and how they respond to it depends upon the social context and their perceptions of why the objective injustice occurred. Here we examine a general feature of the situation that highlights what is often overlooked in distributive justice research: the impact of the group. We conceptualize such impact in terms of the group value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and in terms of collective sources of legitimacy (Walker and Zelditch, 1993). The former highlights how the extent to which one feels valued by the group may enhance perceptions of distributive justice (net of actual outcomes) and thus ameliorate the impetus to respond to objective injustice. The latter considers how the dynamics of group influence may reduce the propensity to respond behaviorally to perceived injustice. Our analysis shows how procedural justice and legitimacy (in the forms of authorization and endorsement) may affect attributions in a work setting, and, in turn, influence individuals' justice perceptions and reactions. By combining these elements, we chart for the first time the relative impact of two factors representing elements of the group on an individual's evaluation of and response to distributive injustice.     

Distributive justice: Theory and research

The concept of distributive justice and the theoretical and empirical work conducted on it during the past two decades are examined. Three questions provide the structure for this examination: (i) What are fundamental conceptual dimensions of distributive justice and the specific substantive issues to which they are related? (ii) What central questions has recent work on distributive justice addressed? and (iii) What are the most important emerging issues on which work in the near-term future should focus? Much of the theory and research examined in the paper is social psychological in nature, but reference is made to related work in related disciplines, particularly sociology and philosophy.