Distributive justice and willingness to pay for municipality child care

With the aim of investigating factors affecting willingness to pay for municipality child care, a survey was undertaken in Sweden of 1840 parents living in five municipalities of different sizes. On the basis of the greed-efficiency-fairness hypothesis (Wilke, 1991) which is supported by results from experimental social dilemma research, it was hypothesized that perceived fairness of how the quality of child care is distributed (equal, proportional to need, or proportional to payment) as well as of method of payment (collectively by taxes or proportional to use by fees) would be important determinants of willingness to pay. Results showed that perceived fairness of how quality of child care is distributed played some role but that other factors had stronger effects. Perhaps also reflecting fairness considerations, willingness to pay by fees was on average higher than willingness to pay by taxes. Predicted from previous research, willingness to pay by taxes was furthermore found to increase with income and degree of use. However, willingness to pay by taxes showed an increase rather than the predicted decrease with municipality size.     

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.     

Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace

The interrelatedness of procedural and distributive justice has implications for organizational practice, especially in the area of performance appraisal. I explore these implications by first describing how procedures can influence perceptions of distributive justice: Procedural improprieties can bring to mind the possibility that a more just outcome might have been obtained if only more acceptable practices had been followed. Next I discuss a second form of interrelatedness — how distributive consequences can influence perceptions of procedural justice — by suggesting that the fairness of a procedure can be assessed in terms of its expected-value (typical or most probable) outcome. These points are illustrated by a discussion of howvoice, or the opportunity for employees to contribute information during the performance appraisal process, can affect both appraisal accuracy and perception of fairness.     

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.     

Symbols, rationality, and justice: rationing health care.

Proposals to ration health care in the United States meet a number of objections, symbolic and literal. Nonetheless, an acceptance of the idea of rationing is a necessary first step toward universal health insurance. It must be understood that universal health care requires an acceptance of rationing, and that such an acceptance must precede enactment of a program, if it is to be economically sound and politically feasible. Commentators have argued that reform of the health care system should come before any effort to ration. On the contrary, rationing and reform cannot be separated. The former is the key to the latter, just as rationing is the key to universal health insurance.     

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.     

Improving justice and mental health systems interactions

Over the last three decades, theorists and practitioners in the field of mental health law have adhered to adoctrinal analysis paradigm characterized by an emphasis on legal doctrine, rational analysis of self-evident, albeit abstract legal principles, and law reform. Acknowledging that the paradigm has been highly successful in facilitating major reform of mental health law, the thesis of this article is that its value for understanding and improving justice and mental health systems interactions is largely exhausted. It urges a “paradigm shift” to an approach that emphasizes the interrelated steps, tasks, and processes in the interactions of the justice and mental healthsystems. It suggests several directions where such a shift might lead: (a) inquiry focused on such organizational components of justice and mental health interactions as court clinics; (b) the development of a meaningful statistical portrait of the number and composition of cases that impact both the justice and mental health systems; (c) a better understanding of the missions, goals, objectives, and administrative structures of the components in the justice and mental health systems interactions; (d) a greater emphasis on the work of trial courts, as opposed to appeals courts; and (e) the development of a new information architecture for the field of mental health law.     

Mental health courts: serving justice and promoting recovery

This article begins and ends with a call for more empirical research to understand the connection between societal views of mental illness and the legal system. The author asserts that changing social perceptions of mental illness certainly affect legal outcomes and commitment levels, but the degree remains unknown. This article explores the above two topics through the framework of the Circuit Court 'split' regarding the Constitutional rights of persons committed to state mental health institutions. A main facet of the 'split' is centered on the Circuits' disagreement about whether or not all mentally ill patients committed to institutions deserve the same Constitutional protections.     

Access to justice for New Zealand health consumers

New Zealand has evolved a just, sensible and balanced system for addressing adverse medical events. This article considers potential changes to enhance justice for health consumers after an adverse event. Patient motivations for claiming are described. Changes to the complaints regime are considered with the aim of opening up access to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Modest change only is advocated, to avoid the potential for the tribunal to become a de facto appeal mechanism. The preferable solution is greater access to Health and Disability Commissioner investigations. The second part of the article considers changes, some implemented already, to the compensation regime to make it more affordable. These will compromise the ability of the scheme to address the remedial interest of injured patients in compensation. Undesirable consequences are likely to occur across the system. Policy-makers need to consider the ramifications of change for the system as a whole.     

Mental health issues and the Canadian criminal justice system**

The critics assert that a significant proportion of incarcerated individuals suffers from mental health issues, i.e. ‘the criminalization hypothesis.’ The current paper reviews the scholarly literature to address five interrelated questions: (1) What are the risks of those classified as mentally ill for committing crimes and, in particular, violent crimes? (2) As the gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, what happens during ‘first encounters’ between the police with those who have mental illnesses? (3) What community-based services are available for effective diversions as an alternative to incarceration for those with mental illnesses? (4) What are the impacts of treatment options upon those experiencing mental illnesses while incarcerated, including the impact upon recidivism? (5) What types of pre-release planning and community responses have the most positive effects to help reduce recidivism and assist offenders in coping with mental health issues in the Canadian context? After summarizing key evidence pertaining to these questions, the paper presents case studies as exemplars of ‘best practices’ to illustrate promising directions conducive to integrated, holistic, and effective responses at the intersection of the criminal justice and mental health systems.     

Social justice and legal justice

The main aim of this paper is to challenge the validity of the distinction between legal justice and social justice. It is argued that what we usually call legal justice is either an application of the more fundamental notion of social justice to legal rules and decisions or is not a matter of justice at all. In other words, the only correct uses of the notion of legal justice are derivative from the notion of social justice and, hence, the alleged conflicts between criteria of social and legal justice result from the confusion about the proper relationship between these two concepts. Two views about the social justice/legal justice dichotomy are of particular importance and will provide the focus for the argument: this dichotomy is sometimes identified with a classical distinction between distributive and commutative justice and sometimes with the distinction between substantive and procedural justice.     

Medical school forensic psychiatry units in health care delivery facilities rather than criminal justice institutions: an alternative model

We have presented a model for developing forensic psychiatric treatment and teaching services of a medical school Department of Psychiatry, but where these services are the basic comprehensive health care delivery system for the entire community. These offer consultative and treatment services for adult and family court clinic, psychiatric forensic services, of forensic psychiatry open bed and medium security-type bed, as well as day hospital and outpatient services. All of these are sited in the normal health care delivery system of the university teaching hospitals and its patient treatment, teaching, and research facilities. Consultative services are offered on request to the criminal justice system, but the basic health care delivery system is controlled administratively by the ordinary university teaching hospital authorities and exists as a one of a kind unit at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. The Royal Ottawa Hospital is a private nonprofit hospital, with its own Board of Trustees, and is affiliated with the medical school, as part of a major university network. We believe it important to present this model for an overall forensic psychiatric service, in contradistinction to the more commonly established forensic psychiatric facilities in state mental hospitals, in a special facility for the criminally insane, or in a criminal justice system institution such as a penitentiary. We believe that our model for forensic psychiatric facilities has great advantages for the patient. Here the patient is treated in a specialized facility (as all psychiatric patients with specialized problems should be); but one which is a specialized forensic facility, within the range of specialized psychiatric facilities that are needed by an urban community.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)