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.     

Managing Equality in Social Dilemmas: Emotional and Retributive Implications

The equality rule is an important coordination rule in symmetric public good dilemmas. Although prior research emphasized that people use the equality rule out of efficiency concerns (as it helps to obtain the public good in the most efficient manner among group members), it may also reflect a true preference for fairness. More precisely, research examining emotional and retributive reactions as a result of a violation of the equality rule by a fellow group member showed that equality indeed is related to people’s personal values and what they consider to be fair. The present paper suggests that a violation of the equality rule results in emotional reactions, and these emotional experiences encourage further retributive actions. The different reactions following an equality violation are described as a function of three features: (1) the motives to use equality, (2) attributions for explaining the violation, and (3) the honesty of the given explanation. The write-up of this paper was partly supported by GOA/05/04 from the Research Fund of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. The research and write-up was supported by a fellowship of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, Grant No. 016.005.019), awarded to the second author.     

The effect of inputs and performance outcomes on allocation decisions

This study used a 2×2×5 factorial vignette study to examine allocations. The factors included gender, task (cooperative vs. competitive), and information (ability only, diligence only, performance only, ability and performance, diligence and performance). The study confirms previous findings that allocations in competitive situations are more equitable than in cooperative settings. Further, allocations in diligence conditions are more equitable than those in ability conditions. However, results reveal that allocations based on knowledge about performance outcomes are different from those based on attributional inputs. The role of inputs and performance in the allocation process is discussed.     

The role of procedural justice in the allocation of limited resources: A West German perspective

Following the experimental design used by Barrett-Howard and Tyler (1986), this study examines the importance given by West German university students to procedural and distributive justice allocation decision making. After reading one of eight scenarios in which there was a limited resource to be allocated, the subjects answered questions concerning the importance and meaning of justice. For the most part, the results correspond to previous U.S. findings of the importance of procedural justice and its definition across various allocation settings. However, the West German students placed greater importance on having mechanisms for correcting inadequate decisions than did their American counterparts. Beyond the design of the initial U.S. study, however, the West German students were asked in an open-ended format to discuss their concerns in making the allocation decision. Nearly half of the unprompted responses centered around justice issues.     

Equality and Distributions of Inheritance in Families

Inheritance distributions in families involve people in deciding about the meaning and application of equality. Using a distributive justice perspective, this study used hypothetical vignettes to examine 89 older adults' judgements about inheritance distributions to children under systematically varied conditions related to a child's relative deservedness or need. Participants endorsed the cultural norm of equal distribution where there was little information about circumstances. When they knew an adult child's circumstances, 80 percent of participants qualified their adherence to equality in situations that evoke other distributive principles which are important in families, for example, reciprocity and responsiveness to need. Decisions about inheritance distributions involve adapting social norms to different family circumstances, taking account of specific roles and relationships, and giving personal meanings to the concept of equality.     

Distributive Justice and the Allocation of Costs,Losses, and Profits

In an experimental study, participants read a scenario about five business partners who sold plants at a flea market. Each partner obtained a different outcome and still had to pay the costs of the partnership. Participants either had to indicate what they considered to be a fair distribution of the costs (given each individual partner's earnings) or what they considered to be a fair distribution of the net results (the total outcome minus the costs). The total outcome was either higher or lower than the costs (i.e., the enterprise resulted in a net profit or a net loss). The results indicate that fairness judgments are affected by the target of distribution. Negative outcomes are distributed differently than positive outcomes, and within the domain of negative outcomes, marked differences are observed between costs and net losses. The results are explained in terms of the differential salience of the distribution of the net result.     

Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement: The basic task of each social actor and fundamental problem for the social sciences

A preliminary statement of a theoretical framework integrating psychological and societal determinants of justice in human affairs is presented. It is proposed that the social structure provides the rules of entitlement and decision making that regulate the course of routine social interaction. These societally based norms are representable in people's conscious thought processes. By contrast, the psychologically generated rules of entitlement, typically contradict conventionally accepted rules of thought and discourse and thus remain unconscious. The major part of the discussion considers the motivationally important circumstances that engage the unconscious psychologically compelling determinants and how their appearance in behavior is both shaped and legitimized by the situationally prevailing normative context. The final section considers some of the more important methodological, theoretical, and social policy implications of this social psychological theory of entitlements.     

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.     

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.     

论刑法平等原则的理论基础

平等是指人们相互间权利获得与义务履行的相同性 ,它应是一种相对平等、地位平等。刑法平等应是权利意义上的人人平等 ,它以形式平等为原则 ,反对结果平等 ,但同时也应包括实质平等的内容。就目前而言 ,可接受的实质平等只能是给弱者优待 ,而不能给强者特权。上述意义的刑法平等原则 ,应在基本原则中居于最高地位 ,应担负起罪刑法定、罪刑均衡无能为力的任务     

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。     

Equality,fairness, and social conflict

There are three generic problems that arise in the use of the concept of equality as a principle of fairness. These problems concern (i) determining when equality is appropriate as opposed to some other principle, (ii) deciding how equality is to be operationalized, and (iii) determining how to implement equality. The proposal is made that these intrapersonal decision conflicts are mirrored by social conflicts when multiple interests are involved. This way of looking at social conflicts also suggests some novel ways to approach conflict resolution.     

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.     

平等视野中的消费者权利解读

虽然从产生之初人类就一直进行着消费活动,但消费者权利的提出却并非与人类消费行为的出现同步。消费者权利的产生需要一定的条件,这主要表现为消费者问题的产生和消费者保护运动的开展。消费者权利作为保护消费者利益的法律手段,其产生昭示了法律对平等的追求,是人权的平等观和平等的正义观的体现,具有正当性。     

Backing Away From Equality

Abstract

In his early work in political philosophy, Amartya Sen advanced an interesting and provocative thesis – the egalitarian thesis. This is the claim that every conception of social justice that has received support in recent times is egalitarian. This paper argues that Sen's account of capabilities and his more recent critique of transcendental justice have implications for the truth of the egalitarian thesis. It also discusses how the rejection of the egalitarian thesis bears on the larger, and more general, issue of the overall plausibility of egalitarian conceptions of social justice.     

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.     

平等权原则与宽容——以平等和自由的关系为向度

平等和自由之间是存在张力的,且经常表现为一种矛盾关系。国家强制平等往往通过一定的制度来实现,而这种制度如果不能在自由与平等之间保持某种适度平衡,就会导致来自国家或社会的歧视与缺乏宽容。就平等权原则在世界各国宪法上的规定及其实践而言,虽然不同国家的宪政制度和法治文化传统不同,但都体现了宽容的内在性要求,一如美国的"平等保护原则"和德国的"法律上的平等与禁止恣意原则"。鉴于我国人民代表大会制度下的"立法归类"可能造成的歧视和不宽容,将"法律面前人人平等"单纯理解为平等权或法律适用上的平等原则,都是不甚妥当的,它仍然有进一步诠释的余地。在更为根本的宪法原则层面,宽容理念要求确立社会法治国原则,以对传统法治国原则进行修正,以进一步调和自由与平等之间的内在紧张关系。     

Distributive and procedural justice: Multifaceted meanings and interrelations

Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have taken on various interpretations. Even when the meaning assigned to each term has been specified and clarified, however, no single set of unique interpretations for each term allows for an unambiguous set of interrelations among the terms. That is, definitional clarity alone cannot resolve all of the questions that can be raised about how one construct is related to another. My discussion raises some of those questions to illustrate that point. A related point is that although an agreed upon set of conceptual defintions might allow for independence of the constructs and thus their independent manipulation, in practice—and as measured (rather than manipulated) variables—these constructs inevitably reveal considerable overlap. Several different reasons for this overlap are explored and the implications discussed.     

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.     

Distributive and procedural justice in interpersonal and intergroup situations: Issues,solutions, and extensions

This paper addresses theoretical issues relating to distributive and procedural justice. Specifically, comparisons are made between interpersonal and intergroup situations. Within the realm of distributive justice, two reinterpretations of the ingroup allocation bias are offered. One reinterpretation states that people show this bias to prevent being exploited by the outgroup. The other reinterpretation states that the bias can be regarded as a measure of the perceived worth of the ingroup in relation to the outgroup. The related issue of the procedure used for allocating resources is addressed by extending Tyler and Lind's (1992) Relational Model of Authority to all ingroup members in both interpersonal and intergroup situations. Reinterpretations and extensions offered in this paper lead to new theoretical insights and to several suggestions and predictions for future empirical research.