Cross-Cultural Preferences for Distributive Justice Principles: Resource Type and Uncertainty Management

Drawing on social resource theory, we investigated the evaluation of distributive justice principles in relation to material benefits (monetary rewards in working life) and symbolic benefits (praise at university) in a cross-cultural study. We predicted that the equity principle would be perceived as more just for distributing culturally valued resources, whereas the equality principle would be perceived as more just for resources that are less valued within culture. Moreover, applying uncertainty management theory, we predicted that cross-cultural fairness evaluations would be more pronounced for individuals with higher (vs. lower) uncertainty avoidance or lower (vs. higher) uncertainty tolerance. Data of 608 Canadian and German students were collected in a two-wave survey. As expected, when allocating material benefits Canadians found the equity principle to be more just than did Germans, whereas Germans perceived the equality principle as more just than did Canadians. When allocating symbolic benefits, by contrast, Canadians perceived equality as more just than did Germans, though unexpectedly culture did not influence evaluations of the equity principle. Finally, consistent with uncertainty management theory, some of the cultural differences in the evaluation of distributive principles were more pronounced among people with higher uncertainty avoidance and lower uncertainty tolerance. Implications for cross-cultural research on distributive justice are discussed.     

论检察权的配置重点和方向

优化司法职权配置,首先要明确人民代表大会制度下检察权的属性及检察权优化配置的基本原则。在此基础上,按照公正高效和有利于监督制约的要求,通过检察机关内部的机构调整和职权配置,整合现有资源,更有效地行使法律赋予的职权。     

Distributing Adventitious Resources: The Effects of Relationship and Grouping

This study examines the effect of two variables—relationship and grouping—on the distribution of resources which are unearned, or adventitious. Strangers and acquaintances made decisions about the distribution of an adventitious resource either as individual decision makers or as members of a small group. Results indicate that acquaintances were more likely to share the resource than were strangers, and that group members were more likely to share than were individual allocators. Equality received the highest overall rating as a norm for distributing the adventitious resource. At the same time, subjects expected allocators to keep the resource instead of applying an equality distribution norm.     

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。     

Access and allocation in climate change adaptation

As climate change impacts become increasingly apparent, adaptation becomes increasingly urgent. Accordingly, adaptation to climate change has shifted towards the centre of attention in both policy and research. In this article, we review the last 10 years of adaptation research (2008–2018), with a focus on work within the Earth System Governance network. We use the lens of access and allocation to structure our review and examine how adaptation affects, and is affected by, access to basic needs, basic rights, and decision-making on the one hand, as well as allocation of responsibilities, resources, and risks on the other. We find that questions of justice, equity, and fairness are fundamental to all dimensions of adaptation. The access perspective, for example, suggests that we need to assess vulnerability, understood broadly, while the allocation perspective focuses on questions of responsibility for being vulnerable, e.g. when people live, or move to, hazard-prone areas exposed to climate risk. This also relates to questions of who is responsible for selecting, implementing, and funding adaptation measures. Overall, we find that the framework of “access and allocation” and its subcategories offer a detailed approach to adaptation and adaptation research, but that it is not intuitive. The notion of “climate justice” seems to resonate more with both academic and policy debates.

     

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 “Economic Battle” Now and Then: (E)valuation Patterns of Distributive Justice in Cuban State-Socialism

This article disentangles and explores some commonly made assumptions about egalitarian state-socialist ideologies. Based on the conceptual framework of the multiprinciple approach of justice, it presents the results of an in-depth analysis of (e)valuation patterns of distributive justice in Cuban state-socialism. The analysis mainly focuses on ideational conceptions of distributive justice (just rewards), but it also accounts for distribution outcomes and resulting (in)equalities (actual rewards). The results of the comparative case study of the Cuban framework of institutions and political leaders’ views in two periods of time, the early 1960s and the 2010s, point to (e)valuation patterns that are generally labelled as egalitarian, such as the allocation rules of outcome equality and (non-functional) needs. However, contrary to common assumptions about egalitarian state-socialist ideologies, the results also point to several other patterns, including equity rules as well as functional and productivist allocation rules. I argue that many of these (e)valuation patterns, in their connection to the discursive storyline of the Cuban economic battle, are indeed compatible with egalitarian state-socialist ideology.

     

Equity,equality, and need: A study of the patterns and outcomes associated with their use in intimate relationships

This study examined the extent to which specific justice principles (equity, equality, and need) are associated with different orientations within complex relationships. This contrasts with previous research that has focused on the extent to which justice principle use varies across relationships representing distinctly different goals. Forty-eight men and 60 women were randomly assigned to conditions of equity, equality, or need. Each was asked to describe a recent incident from their own relationship illustrating the principle to which they were assigned. Incidents were coded into one of three domains representing the multiple orientations of intimate relationships. Subjects in the need condition were more likely to describe incidents related to issues of nurturance or personal development, whereas subjects in equity and equality were more likely to describe incidents related to the allocation of responsibilities. Subjects in the equality condition rated their principles as a more desirable basis for decision making in intimate relationships than subjects in either equity or need. Regardless of the relationship domain, subjects in the equality as compared to the equity condition also reported more positive feelings about the decision and themselves as well as more positive and less negative feelings toward their partner.     

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.     

机关运行保障的立法逻辑

机关运行保障的本质是机关运行保障主管部门作为国家与机关间的媒介者,对经费、资产以及服务等各种资源与利益在党政机关各部门之间进行调整与分配。在流程上具体包括分配前的资源取得、分配的实施以及分配后对资源使用情况的监管。经费、资产、服务等资源在党政机关内部分配的目标在于,以最少的财政资金作为成本,保障党政机关的高效优质运行,实现分配的效能。资源分配效能目标的实现,对分配体制、分配标准与保障计划以及分配后的监管与评估等均有特殊要求。立足分配构造,反思我国现行机关运行保障制度,可以发现其在保障体制、保障标准与保障计划以及后续监管与评估等方面均有待完善,而这还须藉由机关运行保障立法予以实现。对此,可行的思路是将《机关事务管理条例》升格为《机关运行保障法》,以此作为机关运行保障的"基本法",对我国党政机关的机关运行保障工作一体规范。     

Just as you like it: How allocators decide in cases of conflict between own and recipients' views of justice

The present study examined how people, who are instructed to make just allocations, decide in situations of conflict when their personal views of what constitutes the appropriate justice standard are partly at variance with the opinions and preferences of the recipients of the allocations. We expected, in line with recent theories, which stress that justice behavior is at least partly motivated by the desire to get one's actions accepted and approved, the allocation decisions to be influenced not only by the allocators' own ideas of what constitutes a just solution but also by the preferences they perceive to exist for the recipients. It was predicted that the likelihood that allocators will abandon their personally preferred justice standards and allocate in accordance to recipients' preferences will increase with increasing numbers of cues suggesting an alternative allocation. Subjects having a strong personal preference for the equality over the equity standard of justice were asked to make just allocations of payments among two workers. Availability vs. lack of explicit information about the recipients' allocation preferences and expectation of future interaction with one of the recipients were used to operationalize differing amounts of pressure exerted on the allocators' decisions. Results showed a considerable readiness on the part of the allocators to abandon their own views of justice, the amount of readiness varying with the amount of pressure that was weighing upon them.     

Mode of Accomplishing Positive and Negative Outcomes: Its Effect on Fairness Evaluations

In their interactions, people exchange or distribute things that are considered valuable. The distribution of a particular resource can be accomplished in a number of ways and may result in either a positive or a negative outcome. The purpose of this study was to find out if and under what conditions people's conceptions of justice are similar or different in the contexts of positive and negative outcome allocations. The research is based on Törnblom's (1988) model for positive and negative outcome allocation. Subjects responded to one of eight questionnaires after reading a vignette that described a nuclear test that was conducted in either the United States or Russia. Each questionnaire version differed with respect to whom information about the possible dangers of radiation exposure following the tests should be made available, and whether information or misinformation were delivered or withheld. Findings from this study suggests that positive and negative outcome allocations sometimes follow different and sometimes the same justice principles, all depending on the mode in which the outcome allocation is accomplished. Implications from the design of this study for the interpretation of existing distributive justice and equity studies are also discussed.     

Patient inducement, provider priorities, and resource allocation in public mental health systems

Public mental health systems are increasingly facing demands from the criminal justice system and social services agencies to provide services and support in cases in which mental illness contributes to crime, homelessness, or poverty. In this article we analyze how policies from outside public mental health systems affect resource allocation within these systems, using examples from criminal justice. These policies use two types of mechanisms: inducing patients to consume treatment (by offering rewards or imposing penalties) and inducing clinicians to provide treatment (by creating priorities). We propose a classification of these social policies based on whether they affect demand through rewards or penalties or supply through priorities. We then relate the classification to data on patients treated in public systems to evaluate the current prevalence and potential for growth in these outside demands. These inducements impose a set of nonobvious costs on other patients who are not targeted by the policies. Furthermore, they create incentives for both patients and providers to modify their behavior in order to take advantage of rewards, avoid penalties, or better compete for resources with prioritized patients. We consider some policy implications for avoiding unintended consequences of these policies.     

Positive versus Negative Framing Affects Justice Judgments

This research demonstrates the effect of framing on justice judgments. Presenting identical allocation situations in different modes of accomplishing the resource allocation, resulting in either positive (benefits) or negative (harms) outcomes, affects justice judgments. Two independent studies revealed that participants judged non-egalitarian principles (i.e., merit, ability, effort, need, and tenure) as more just when allocation of a resource was presented in the positive framing manner (e.g., to deliver goods or to withhold bads) relative to presenting the exact same resource allocated in a negative framing manner (e.g., to deliver bads or to withhold goods). It is suggested that the way resource allocation is framed evokes favorable (or unfavorable) associations that cause people to judge the situation as more (or less) just.     

Political Liberalism, Ethos Justice, and Gender Equality

Susan Okin criticizes John Rawls’s ‘political liberalism’ because it does not apply principles of justice directly to gender relations within households. We explain how one can be a ‘political liberal feminist’ by distinguishing between two kinds of justice: the first we call ‘legitimacy justice’, conceptions of which apply to the ‘legally coercive structure’ of society; the second we call ‘ethos justice’, conceptions of which apply to citizens’ ‘non-coercive’ relations. We agree with Okin that a society in which most persons act in accordance with ‘gender equal’ ethos justice is morally superior to one in which most persons do not. A shared commitment to a particular conception of ethos justice, however, cannot be required by a conception of legitimacy justice. A political liberal feminist is committed to promoting gender equality with respect to both legitimacy justice and ethos justice, but recognizes that different means are necessary to do so.     

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.     

Justice in Medicare: recent changes to the public health care system

This article sets out and examines a number of changes proposed by the Commonwealth Government to the Australian Medicare system as part of the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 federal budgets, and the 2004 federal election campaign. In assessing the suitability of these reforms, the idea of justice is discussed. Health, as a basic good, is argued to be a matter of distributional and rectificatory justice. A number of popular material principles of justice are also examined and shown to be unsuited as sole determinants of health care resource allocation decisions. In light of this, various problems with the reforms are identified and improvements suggested.     

Sharing the Fruit of Labor: Flexible Application of Justice Principles in an Ultimatum Game with Joint-Production

Individuals often need to negotiate how to distribute jointly produced goods—equally (e.g., 50:50) or equitably (e.g., proportionally to their contributions). We examined whether people have stable preferences, or whether they switch between equality and equity in different situations. Pairs of anonymous participants first produced a common pie, and then distributed it in an ultimatum game. Results suggest that individuals apply different justice principles depending on their contribution. When they produced less than 50%, proposers divided the pie equally. However, when they produced more than 50%, their offers fell between equality and equity. Responders’ ratings of fairness and satisfaction varied similarly; with low production, equality was preferred, whereas with high production, equity was preferred. Nevertheless, equal and equitable offers were generally accepted, and only outright unfair offers were rejected. This suggests that individuals are relatively flexible about which justice principle should be applied, but punish proposers whose offers violate both principles.     

Virtuous Circularity: Positive Law and Particular Justice

This paper argues that the positive allocative decisions paradigmatically carried out by the application of legal rules are a necessary condition for arguments about particular justice (i.e., distributive and commutative justice) to make sense. If one shifts the focus from the distinction between distributive and commutative justice to what the two aspects of particular justice are for, namely, providing criteria to judge the allocation of goods, it becomes clear that the distinction is conceptually unstable. The paper argues that stabilizing the distinction is worthwhile and that this can only be accomplished by the introduction of positive allocation schemes.     

论平等在刑法中的地位

刑法第四条就适用刑法人人平等作了明确的规定,但关于平等在刑法中处于什么位置一直备受争议。关于平等在刑法中的地位,主要涉及三个问题,即:平等是法律原则还是法律权利;平等是否能为刑法的基本原则;刑法平等原则与罪刑法定原则、罪责刑相适应原则之间是什么关系。