"效率优先,兼顾公平":历史与现实之评述

13年前中共十四届三中全会提出的“效率优先,兼顾公平,”其实质体现的是新旧体制的转换,是用机会均等的公平观对结果均等的公平观的取代。这一提法具有很强的历史和现实合理性。在实践中,我们存在的问题是没有认真落实“兼顾公平”。目前,为了解决严重的分配不公,我们必须更加重视公平。但在很长历史时期,作为战略方针的“效率优先”不能因目前更加重视公平的潮流而牺牲掉。可以说,以经济发展为基础,在效率与公平之间保持适度关系,应当是我们寻找社会主义市场经济体制下制度化分配的指导思想。     

和谐社会观:寻求公平与效率的均衡

和谐社会观有其深厚的历史文化渊源。在当代,和谐社会观体现了当代社会发展的根本要求。和谐社会的形成既有利益关系的协调性,又有价值观上的普遍性。利益讲的是效率,价值则注重的是公平,效率强调的是资源配置的有效性,公平注重的是分配的合理性,二者相辅相成,共存共荣。公平与效率之间的关系,也要与时俱进,不是一成不变的。和谐社会观,就是现阶段的经济社会发展要逐步实现公平与效率的均衡,并把此种意义上的公平与效率问题作为和谐社会观的根本问题。     

马克思公平观的发展轨迹及其当代意义

马克思从揭露和批判资产阶级抽象的公平观入手,阐述了只有到了共产主义社会才能真正实现公平的原则,从而把公平的实现建立在科学的基础之上。研究马克思的公平观的发展轨迹,有助于我们树立马克思主义的公平观和坚持公平的社会主义价值观,正确地处理当代中国改革和发展中的公平问题,促进社会主义和谐社会的构建。     

“90后”大学生公平观现状与教育研究

"90后"大学生的公平观整体是好的,但由于受"90后"思想特点的影响出现了新的情况和问题,一部分大学生存在投机思想,在大学生群体间不公平感普遍存在,且在面对不公平问题时,部分大学生难以作为等;分析原因在于大学生个体价值观偏离、高校公平教育引导缺失等。由此提出高校中提升大学生公平观教育引导的三项对策,即弘扬社会主义核心价值观;创新思政理论课教育教学;努力营造校园公平的氛围。从而引导大学生树立符合社会主流的公平观和构建有利于大学生成长的良好环境。     

毛泽东社会主义公平观及其当代启示

毛泽东社会主义公平观是毛泽东思想的重要组成部分,立足于我国特殊国情基础上提出来的,是对马克思主义公平观的继承与发展。毛泽东社会主义公平观的基本内容:国家独立和民族解放是实现社会公平的前提条件;人民权利公平是社会公平的根本要求;实现共同富裕,反对两极分化。认真学习和深入研究毛泽东社会主义公平观,对于当前全面深化改革、全面建设小康社会和实现中华民族伟大复兴中国梦,都有重要的现实意义。     

马克思的公平观及其对构建社会主义和谐社会的启示

马克思是在对资本主义公平观的批判的基础上,阐释了其公平观的内容和实质。马克思的公平观建立在唯物史观的基础上,其实质内容是在生产力极大发展的基础上消灭私有制、消灭剥削、消灭阶级,使人的全面自由发展成为可能,最终实现共产主义社会。马克思的公平观对构建和谐社会具有积极的现实意义。     

在批判中诠释马克思、恩格斯公平观

马克思、恩格斯公平观的形成与发展是在对以往思想家永恒公平观、完全平等观、公平分配观的批判中逐渐发展起来的,是在批判资本主义私有制和消灭阶级的基础上建立起来的公平思想。通过对马克思恩格斯经典著作的解读,提炼出所蕴涵公平思想的基本理论,对构建社会主义和谐社会具有重大的现实意义。     

马克思《哥达纲领批判》中的公平分配观及启示

在《哥达纲领批判》中,马克思批驳了拉萨尔荒谬的"公平分配观",并指出该观点是由混乱的逻辑思路引起的,其公平分配观的实质就是资产阶级法权原则指导下的形式公平;马克思的分配公平观是建立在唯物史观基础之上的、按需分配的实质公平,生产方式决定分配方式是马克思公平分配观的逻辑前提;只有不断发展生产力、健全民主法治建设、完善收入分配制度的改革才能逐步实现我国分配领域的公平。     

论邓小平的效率公平观

效率和公平问题,是现代经济伦理的根本问题,也是建设中国特色社会主义必须解决的重大实践问题。邓小平同志作为伟大的马克思主义者,他不仅从效率和公平辩证统一的角度观察分析了社会主义经济制度和经济体制的自我完善问题,而且还对效率和公平问题阐述了具有重大指导意义的理论观点,从而形成了具有时代特色的效率公平观。     

马克思主义公平观视阈下中国社会公平问题

以马克思主义公平观来分析当代中国社会存在的公平问题,进而提出了实现社会公平的可行路径:毫不动摇地坚持党的领导,是实现社会公平的根本保证;大力发展生产力,为实现社会公平打下坚实的物质基础;通过不断加强制度建设来保障社会公平;正确处理公平与效率之间的关系,做到两者的协调统一。     

Preserving fairness: Williams against Cohen on just inequality

The view that the choices people make affect what it is fair for them to receive has widespread appeal. This very general thought has found particular and acute expression in the context of distributive justice in the form of the influential view that has become known as luck egalitarianism. In a surprising development, one of luck egalitarianism’s foremost advocates – G.A. Cohen – appeared, in one of his final papers, to reject the commitment to the fairness of chosen inequalities that defines luck egalitarianism. In opposition to the luck egalitarian view, Cohen suggests that choice merely deprives the disadvantaged of a complaint against being worse off, rather than rendering such inequality fair. Against Cohen’s revised view, Andrew Williams has argued that Cohen’s move underestimates an account of equality under which what individuals choose to do with their equal allocation affects what it is to treat them fairly. Here, I seek to show how the Williams response fails to undermine Cohen’s claims about the relation between fairness and choice. I draw on this analysis to show how the disagreement between Williams and Cohen on this issue illuminates a broader methodological divergence over how to approach questions of justice and fairness.     

What motivates adherence to medical recommendations? The procedural justice approach to gaining deference in the medical arena

Although it is within their long‐term interest, patients often fail to follow health care recommendations made by medical experts. This failure results in the widespread occurrence of preventable health problems and a significant increase in health care costs. Taking a new approach to confronting this issue, this paper examines whether the procedural justice model, which has been useful in explaining cooperation with legal and managerial authorities, can provide a basis for increasing patients' willingness to voluntarily adhere to health care recommendations. Three studies tested and supported this proposition. Study 1 experimentally manipulated physicians' procedural fairness or unfairness to explore its influence on patients' acceptance of doctors' recommendations. Study 2 used patients' reports about the fairness of their personal physicians and linked those evaluations to their willingness to follow their doctor's recommendations. Finally, study 3 explored the role of general procedural justice judgments in promoting willingness to accept health policies when they are advocated by private doctors and government health care authorities. The results of all three studies support the argument that when health care authorities use fair procedures, patients are more likely to accept their recommendations. Importantly, this procedural justice effect is distinct from, and in some cases stronger than, the influence of competence.     

Accounting for Future Generations: Intergenerational Equity in Australia1

Australian governments have published three intergenerational reports since 2002. In line with a general international trend these reports pointed to a problem said to arise from an ageing population which exposes Australia to the risk of a future major fiscal crisis. In this article we argue that by failing to use a generational accounting framework, the reports privilege the elderly at the expense of young people. Added to this, they fail to engage any discussion of intergenerational equity defined as distributive fairness and justice. In this article we explore the value of various approaches to intergenerational justice, focusing on the Principle of Intergenerational Neutrality derived from Rawls' theory of justice. We argue that this does not work as well from a policy point of view as Sen's freedom‐as‐capabilities approach. We conclude that linking Sen's approach to justice to a generational accounting will enable governments to address future issues of equity.     

Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation

In this article I argue that theorizing about justice at the level of ideal theory is inherently flawed and thus has impoverished liberal egalitarianism. Ideal theorists (falsely) assume that a political philosopher can easily determine (or has privileged access to) what constitutes the 'best foreseeable conditions'. Furthermore, by assuming full compliance, ideal theorists violate the constraints of a realistic utopia. More specifically I argue that liberal egalitarians who function at the level of ideal theory adopt a cost-blind approach to rights and a narrow view of possible human misfortune. The former issue leads liberal egalitarians to give priority to a serially ordered principle of equal basic liberties or to treat rights as 'trumps'; and the latter to a stringent prioritarian principle (Rawls' difference principle) or luck egalitarianism. Taken together, the cost-blind approach to rights, coupled with the narrow view of human misfortune, mean the liberal egalitarian theories of justice cannot address the issue of trade-offs that inevitably arises in real non-ideal societies that face the fact of scarcity. This makes liberal egalitarianism an ineffective theory of social justice.     

Ideals of justice: goals vs. constraints

Amartya Sen describes John Rawls’s ‘justice as fairness’ as ‘transcendental institutionalism’ and develops his realization-focused approach in contrast. But Rawls is no transcendental institutionalist, and Sen’s construal of their opposition occludes a third, relation-based position and a valuable and practical form of ideal theory. What Sen calls transcendental institutionalism and realization-focused comparative theory each treat justice as something to bring about, a problem for experts. A third position treats justice in terms of how we relate to one another rather than of achievement. This position, called ‘justice as reciprocity,’ is consistent with Rawls’s ‘justice as fairness’ and Sen’s normative aspirations, and might form the basis of new and fruitful dialogue between them. By treating justice as a question of how we relate to one another, and treating relation-based ideals as the basis of respectful behavioral constraints (rather than of ends to pursue), ‘justice as reciprocity’ grounds an everyday form of just democratic citizenship.     

Taxation and Distributive Justice

Distributive justice concerns the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. Opposition to higher rates of taxation, or even existing levels of taxation, is often made on grounds that such taxes are unfair burdens. This fairness argument can be given a number of further, more-specific formulations. Libertarians, such as Robert Nozick, argue that taxation of income is unfair because it violates individual rights. They invoke an entitlement argument that presumes that the appropriate baseline of property rights is pretax income . Others take issue with specific policies that are supported by taxation, such as welfare provisions, and argue that welfare reform is necessary because tax burdens are only legitimate when they satisfy some form of reciprocity thesis . These arguments are critically assessed here in relation to three recent books – The Cost of Rights , The Myth of Ownership and The Civic Minimum – which explore different arguments often invoked in defence of tax cuts. Themes that raise important questions about taxation and justice are also examined – private property, welfare reform and inheritance. The real challenge facing justice theorists is to take scarcity seriously; thus, I emphasise the shortcomings of simply endorsing a 'cost-blind', rights-oriented conception of justice, which currently dominates debates in normative political theory.     

公正和效率的两难选择——评刑事诉讼法有关侦查程序的修改

我国侦查活动中公正和效率价值的双重缺失一直受到诟病。“宽严相济”刑事司法政策的确立以及司法体制和工作机制改革决策助推了刑事诉讼法再修改。立足于公正和效率价值的平衡,本次刑事诉讼法修改对有关侦查活动的证据制度、强制措施、辩护程序、讯问程序、侦查措施、侦查行为的监督等进行了完善。但基于我国国情,在人权保障、诉讼构造、侦查构造、侦查程序的科学性、侦查程序自治、侦查程序借鉴等方面．理想与现实之间仍存在一定差距。     

公共政策中公平和效率的冲突与统一

本文尝试从主体、资源和过程层面来探讨公共政策中的公平争议问题,然后探讨市场体制下的效率问题,并提出公共政策的实践就是针对市场失灵现象进行政策干预,既追求市场配置资源时的高效率,更追求主体和资源层面的社会公平。最后,本文探讨公平和效率的关系问题,提出当公平的结果实现的是主体追求更高目标的手段而不是直接实现其目标时,公平才能与效率相协调。     

Editorial Note

In the first issue of the International Journal of TransitionalJustice we invited specific authors to share their insightsregarding particular aspects of transitional justice. We soughtto provide a balance between different geographical foci, disciplinaryfields and points of view. From the initial feedback received,we succeeded in meeting our objectives. In this issue, we haveculled from an array of unsolicited submissions. We are delightedthat our call for papers has brought in an exciting range ofcontributions that demonstrate the array of challenges facedby the field and     

When Do the Ends Justify the Means? Evaluating Procedural Fairness

How do people decide whether a political process is fair or unfair? Concerned about principles of justice, people might carefully evaluate procedural fairness based on the facts of the case. Alternately, people could be guided by their prior preferences, endorsing the procedures that produce favored policy outcomes as fair and rating those that generate disliked outcomes as unfair. Using an experimental design, we consider the conditions under which people use accuracy goals versus directional goals in evaluating political processes. We find that when procedures are clearly fair or unfair, people make unbiased assessments of procedural justice. When the fairness of a process is ambiguous, people are more likely to use their prior attitudes as a guide.