Two Decades of Value Change: The Crystallization of Meritocratic and Egalitarian Beliefs in the Czech Republic

Two decades ago, scholars predicted that the economic and political transformations underway in the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe would be accompanied by fundamental shifts in societal values and norms. Unlike political reforms, changes in societal norms were believed to take place gradually, as individuals became increasingly socialized by new institutions and conditions. In this article, we analyze change in a core set of societal norms??beliefs in distributive justice??in the Czech Republic over the last two decades, and locate those trends in regional perspective. What we find is that, over time, the negative association between egalitarian and meritocratic norms has increasingly strengthened, suggesting a crystallization of those norms as opposing value sets. In addition, attachments to those norms are increasingly structured by respondents?? socio-economic status. In order words, the research confirms that subjective norms in the Czech Republic are increasingly shaped by objective social status in ways common in advanced democracies, and that we can speak not only of a crystallization of the value system, but of a corresponding ??re-stratification?? of justice beliefs in relation to social position.     

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.     

Political,merit-based and nepotic elements in the selection of Hungarian judges. A possible way of creating judicial loyalty in East Central Europe

Hungarian judicial selection has been characterised by meritocratic and nepotic elements since the 1990 regime change which are indirectly distorted by change, albeit to a relatively reduced extent, to political aspects. Scores of Hungarian and foreign experts have evaluated the measures of the justice reform put in place after the 2010 change of government as being about a series of successive measures to politicise the judiciary from the creation of the new constitution to legislation regarding the justice system. In this study it has been demonstrated that regarding the initial phase of judicial selection the gradual strengthening of meritocratic elements may be observed, which continued after 2010 as well. First and foremost, it may be traced in the more objective system of evaluating judicial applications. The possibilities for discretionary decisions by heads of administration have been considerably restricted in the selection of judges. At the same time, however, the competences of heads of administration entitled to make appointments have been broadened upon filling court management positions.     

The German “Wutbürger”: How Justice Sensitivity Accounts for Individual Differences in Political Engagement

Perceived injustice can trigger strong emotional reactions and motivate political protest. Although there is vast empirical evidence for this chain of reactions, we know little about individual differences in how perceived injustice can motivate people to engage in political actions. In a survey study with 1,005 German participants, we investigated how justice sensitivity as a personality disposition accounts for individual differences in political engagement. Regression analyses revealed that justice sensitivity from an observer perspective promotes political engagement, whereas justice sensitivity from a victim perspective is not related to political engagement . In the concrete case of a political decision regarding the public transport project “Stuttgart 21” in Germany, our data indicated that perceived procedural injustice of the decision process and moral outrage mediated the relation of justice sensitivity from an observer perspective and political protest. The present findings are in line with research on the behavioral outcomes of justice sensitivity and contribute to the understanding of individual differences in political engagement and its underlying motivational processes.     

Justice as solidarity: A study of the political socialization of adolescents from East and West Germany within the theoretical framework of Durkheim's sociology of morality

The contemporary transformations in western societies confront us with a problem already stated by Durkheim a century ago: What enables members of society to practice social solidarity while becoming increasingly more individualistic? This question is analyzed in view of the political socialization of adolescents and its developmental implications. In line with the Durkheimian tradition in developmental psychology established by Piaget and elaborated by Kohlberg, it is claimed that the development of moral autonomy gives rise to a justice-related sense of responsibility that may foster bonds of solidarity within society. This developmental model was tested against the impact of socialization variables in a sample of East and West Germany adolescents, aged 15 and 18 (N=348). Analyses of the data revealed a substantial relationship between the development of moral autonomy and the readiness to take responsibility for others in response to justice concerns. The impact of the development of moral autonomy on the formation of a justice-related sense of responsibility depended only minimally on background indicators of political socialization in adolescence (e.g., East or West German origin, the socioeconomic status of parents). In the context of current social conditions a developmental approach to political socialization appears crucial to explain the emergence of justice concerns giving rise to solidarity.     

The Unfulfillable Promise of Meritocracy: Three Lessons and Their Implications for Justice in Education

This paper draws on a literature in sociology, psychology and economics that has extensively documented the unfulfilled promise of meritocracy in education. I argue that the lesson learned from this literature is threefold: (1) educational institutions in practice significantly distort the ideal meritocratic process; (2) opportunities for merit are themselves determined by non-meritocratic factors; (3) any definition of merit must favor some groups in society while putting others at a disadvantage. Taken together, these conclusions give reason to understand meritocracy not just as an unfulfilled promise, but as an unfulfillable promise. Having problematized meritocracy as an ideal worth striving for, I argue that the pervasiveness of meritocratic policies in education threatens to crowd out as principles of justice, need and equality. As such, it may pose a barrier rather than a route to equality of opportunity. Furthermore, meritocratic discourse legitimates societal inequalities as justly deserved such as when misfortune is understood as personal failure. The paper concludes by setting a research agenda that asks how citizens come to hold meritocratic beliefs; addresses the persistence of (unintended) meritocratic imperfections in schools; analyzes the construction of a legitimizing discourse in educational policy; and investigates how education selects and labels winners and losers.     

Betwixt and Between Global and Domestic Forms of Justice: The Israeli Case Over Time

The article explores the theoretical and empirical links between global and social domestic justice and the ways in which these links are mediated by local heritages. Using Israel as a case study, we examine the links between macro-level globalization trends and domestic ‘‘spheres of justice’’ as evaluated by secular youth in mainstream Jewish secular state schools. We use two separate datasets: one covering 9,140 students in 48 schools in 1986 (hegemonic Zionism), and another covering 2,542 students in 24 schools in 2011 (globalization). We find that while neoliberal globalization trends present a considerable challenge to the foundational Zionist pioneering ethos, Israeli adolescents today do not unanimously embrace neoliberal principles of global justice. This suggests they are guided by complex beliefs encompassing both neoliberal and more domestically driven principles, creating co-existing and at times contradictory social justice judgment profiles.     

Blended Sentencing Laws and the Punitive Turn in Juvenile Justice

In many states, young people today can receive a “blended” combination of both a juvenile sanction and an adult criminal sentence. We ask what accounts for the rise of blended sentencing in juvenile justice and whether this trend parallels crime control developments in the adult criminal justice system. We use event history analysis to model state adoption of blended sentencing laws from 1985 to 2008, examining the relative influence of social, political, administrative, and economic factors. We find that states with high unemployment, greater prosecutorial discretion, and disproportionate rates of African American incarceration are most likely to pass blended sentencing provisions. This suggests that the turn toward blended sentencing largely parallels the punitive turn in adult sentencing and corrections—and that theory and research on adult punishment productively extends to developments in juvenile justice.     

Justice Beliefs in School: Distinguishing Ultimate and Immanent Justice

This paper combines two recent developments in just world research: the conception of belief in a just world (BJW) as a resource for coping and well-being in everyday life, and the distinction between two different facets of BJW, namely belief in immanent justice (BIJ) and belief in ultimate justice (BUJ). Moreover, these two aspects are adapted to the school context and educational psychology. Scales for measuring ultimate and immanent justice in schools were developed within a German pilot reform project with a sample of 1274 pupils. The two facets could be distinguished by means of factor analysis. The reliability of the two scales is satisfactory, and their validity is confirmed by their differential correlational patterns. Results show that not every form of BJW automatically functions as a coping resource. In fact, only BUJ is able to protect pupils' mental well-being, whereas immanent justice can actually jeopardize well-being. Similarly, BUJ is associated with the perception of solidarity and learning enjoyment in class, whereas BIJ is more closely associated with the experience of rivalry and competition in class. Finally, the socialization of the two justice beliefs is considered. The cross-sectional data provide some evidence to suggest that friendly and supportive parenting styles can promote BUJ, whereas strict parenting styles may further BIJ. More longitudinal research is needed to obtain further insights into these phenomena.     

Ecological Belief in a Just World

To date, there is considerable evidence that the perception of injustice influences environmental behavior in a positive way. Nevertheless, some people do not take action, even if the injustice seems obvious. Concerning this matter, approaches like the belief in a just world theory or system justification theory provide an explanation. However, so far, there is no scientific research on whether the perception of ecological justice, which is taken for granted, concerning an ecological belief in a just world (EBJW) may lead to differences in people’s environmental behavior. This paper investigates a newly conceived construct of the EBJW, regarding its occurrence as well as its disposition in the context of other constructs. Therefore, a new scale has been developed for the purpose of this study by means of a questionnaire with German citizens (n = 312) examining motives for energy-relevant behavior. The scale analyses confirm the validity of the new scale. Even though the EBJW did not score high in the total sample, possibly due to significant differences between the participants (particularly socio-demographic variables and different group memberships) it can be stated that there is definitely a relationship between the EBJW and justification arguments and, ultimately, a lack of responsibility for energy saving. Regression analyses reveal that the EBJW, together with cognitive and affective appraisals of justice, can explain energy-relevant commitment, such as engagement in behavior that has negative impact on the climate. Based on these findings, it is suggested that the EBJW is measurable and that it seems to warrant further research.     

公民的司法参与权研究

公民享有司法参与权是人民主权的有力体现,也是公民实现政治参与的重要途径。宪法和相关法律为公民的司法参与权提供法律依据,正当程序和司法民主理念则是公民司法参与权的法理基础。我国公民司法参与权的表现形式多种多样且范围十分广泛,但我们仍需要通过增加诉权的宪法保障、规范细化陪审制度和人民监督员制度等途径予以完善,以保障公民司法参与权的实现。     

More on Ultimate and Immanent Justice: Results from the Research Project “Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany”

In earlier studies it was shown that two domain-specific variates of belief in a just world, namely belief in immanent justice and belief in ultimate justice concerning severe illness, differ systematically and significantly. Only immanent justice leads to accusation and derogation of innocent victims while ultimate justice is concordant with positive evaluations of victims and helping behavior. With regard to the research project Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany (GiP, from the German Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem), two new scales were developed for purposes of measuring general belief in immanent and ultimate justice. Using a sample of 929 West Germans and 1,275 East Germans, some of the correlation patterns found in earlier studies could be replicated. For example, immanent justice did correlate with draconian judgments (the proneness to strict and severe judgments), while ultimate justice was associated with mildness. Only ultimate justice correlated with existential guilt about the underprivileged. Beside this confirmation of earlier findings, new correlation patterns were revealed. For example, only immanent justice correlated with the equity principle, whereas ultimate justice corresponded to the need and equality principles.     

论社会管理创新中的刑事法治问题

社会管理创新是当今法学界讨论颇多的一个话题。对于社会管理创新与刑法的关系,要建立在法治的认识前提下,社会管理创新与刑法的基本原则并不冲突,刑法的天然属性使得其与社会管理存在紧密的互动关系,同时,刑法的保障法地位,又决定了社会管理创新需要刑法做坚强的后盾,保障秩序稳定。为了适应社会管理创新的要求,基于两者的契合,刑事法治发展需要从五个方面作出努力:关注社会情势,贯彻宽严相济刑事政策;保障公民权利,重视民生犯罪;"刚柔并济",坚持以人为本;革新纠纷解决机制,灵活、多样化解矛盾;落实行刑社会化,契合多元治理理念。     

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.     

民众参与审判的案件类型学分析

民众参与审判主要包括治安法官、参审法官和陪审法官三种制度类型,其案件分布呈现趋同性和差异性两种规律。前者是指各国通过各种形式吸收具有相关知识和经验的民众参与专门案件审判。就后者而言,治安法官主要审理涉及私人纷争、社会影响不大的案件,陪审法官和参审法官主要审理涉及公共利益、社会影响较大的案件。究其原因,案件类型不同,民众参与审判的意义、制度设计及实践运作亦有所差异。当前我国人民陪审员主要参与轻微案件审判,与法律规定及上述规律均发生明显背离。这种背离有其客观原因和现实意义,但在充分发挥民众参与审判的作用方面仍有很大的改革空间。     

Revisiting the Instrumentality of Voice: Having Voice in the Process Makes People Think They Will Get What They Want

Research on procedural justice has found that processes that allow people voice (i.e., input) are perceived as fairer, and thus elicit more positive reactions, than processes that do not allow people voice. Original theorizing attributed these effects to beliefs that the provision of voice enhances people’s sense of process control, which people were assumed to value because it impacts their perceived likelihood of receiving desired outcomes (the instrumental perspective of procedural justice). Subsequent research questioned this perspective, arguing that outcome expectations do not account for the effects of voice. However, this subsequent research failed to directly examine the interplay of voice, outcome expectations, and reactions. The current studies revisit and extend research on this topic by asking whether manipulations of voice act as shared circumstance effects. Confirming an untested implication of the instrumental perspective, we show that giving everyone voice increases their belief, ex-ante, that they are likely to win an upcoming competition. However, this instrumental belief accounts for only part of the effects of voice on perceived procedural fairness and on general reactions to outcomes. Results suggest that voice does indeed have instrumental significance, an implication not adequately recognized in current justice theorizing. However, this instrumentality does not, by itself, explain why people value having a voice in processes that affect them.     

Are Just-World Beliefs Compatible with Justifying Inequality? Collective Political Efficacy as a Moderator

Previous research demonstrates that the belief in a just world is often accompanied by the justification of social inequality and by low socio-political participation (e.g., Jost and Hunyady, Curr Direct Psychol Sci 14:260–265, 2005). However, studies provide evidence that the relations may be moderated by individual differences such as a person’s self-efficacy expectations to promote justice and equality (Mohiyeddini and Montada, Responses to victimization and belief in a just world, 1998). At the societal level, collective political efficacy has consistently been found to foster political participation (cf. Lee, Int J Public Opin Res 22:392–411, 2010). In our study, we tested whether collective political efficacy may attenuate the negative social impact of the belief in a just world: It is predicted that when collective political efficacy is low, a strong belief in a just world would increase the motivation to justify inequality. By contrast, when collective political efficacy is high, the belief in a just world would not increase, but potentially decrease the motivation to justify inequality. In turn, justification of inequality is expected to negatively affect socio-political participation. Data from 150 university students were analyzed using moderated structural equation modeling. In our study, the expected moderating effect of collective political efficacy on the relation between belief in a just world and justification of inequality was established empirically. When collective political efficacy was high, justification of inequality did not inevitably increase with the belief in a just world. In addition, the impact of belief in a just world on justice-promoting behavior was mediated by justification of inequality. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.     

政治文明、和谐社会与法治理念——法治乃政治文明所需、和谐社会所求

由政治文明与和谐社会思想衍生的法治理念具有丰富的内涵。实践社会主义法治理念,必须建立中国特色的以权力制约与权力统合为内容的分权体制,不断提升执政党的民主能力和法治能力;必须贯彻人本思想、民本精神,尊重和保障人权,实现人民参与,使权力“属于人民、通过人民、为了人民”;必须以宪政与人权为核心价值,改造国家精神和政治价值观,建立和完善全面的权力制约体系,建设有限政府;必须将公平正义视为立法和制度的首要价值,为法制注入人性、人道和人权精神,通过公正司法维护社会正义;必须强化法治思维,将人权和正义价值作为政治社会稳定的内涵,以贯彻法治、保障人权和维护正义为服务大局的指导思想和行动指南;必须构建以正义和良知为基本内涵的政法文化。     

Racial attitudes and belief in redeemability: Most Whites believe justice-involved Black people can change

Public belief in redeemability reduces punitiveness and increases support for policy measures such as rehabilitation, expungement, and housing and employment opportunities. Although racial attitudes are known to influence a wide range of criminal justice policy opinions, their effects on beliefs about redeemability and condemnation have not been fully explored. Using data from a 2019 YouGov survey of a national sample of White U.S. adults (N = 766), the current study estimates the effects of three distinct racial attitudes—racial resentment, racial sympathy, and White nationalism—on three measures of belief in redeemability: 1) a race-neutral measure, 2) a measure of belief in redeemability of Black offenders, and 3) a measure of condemnation of Black offenders. The results indicate that belief in redeemability is high—for offenders in general and for Black offenders. These findings are supported by a second 2022 YouGov survey of White U.S. adults (N = 1,505). Racial sympathy and White nationalism have significant effects across all three outcomes, with the positive effect of White nationalism on condemnation of Black offenders being the largest across the three models. These findings suggest that although most Whites agree that formerly incarcerated people are redeemable, racial attitudes influence these beliefs, especially for Black offenders.