Agency,Coercion, and Global Justice: A Reply to My Critics

Mathias Risse, Andrea Sangiovanni, and Kok-Chor Tan have offered some subtle and powerful criticisms of the ideas given in my Justice and Foreign Policy. Three themes in particular recur in their critiques. The first is that the arguments I make in that book rest upon unjustified, arbitrary, or contradictory premises. The second is that the use of coercion in the analysis of distributive justice is a mistake. The third is that the global institutional set represents, contrary to my arguments, an independent first-order site of justice. I address these criticisms, and try to vindicate the methodology of Justice and Foreign Policy in the face of these objections.     

Birds of a Feather: A Response to the McCold Critique of Community Justice

This paper focuses on the extensive array of girls living in the social margins for unacceptable public behaviors, and the actions they use to cope with psychological and physical violation of their minds and bodies. Contemporary ideals of girlhood have been shaped particularly by impressions of Victorian utopian thinkers. Ideals of girlhood, however, have not considered how girls might need to adapt to violations of girlhood. The moral space, then, between public perceptions of female deviance and awareness of what has driven the offending girls to their actions has created a deep and protracted antipathy. Using historical texts such as John Ruskin's The Ethics of the Dust, this paper draws on works that contributed to ideals of girlhood to provide ideals that might be incorporated now into restorative models of reconciliation between troubled girls and their communities.     

A Socio-Legal Approach to Administrative Justice

The first part of this article outlines two complementary approaches to enhancing administrative justice. Internal mechanisms, which can be put into place by government departments and public bodies themselves, are contrasted with external mechanisms, which result in the imposition on government departments and public bodies of principles enunciated by courts, tribunals, and ombudsmen. Lawyers are all too familiar with the external approach but tend to be much less familiar with the internal approach. The article seeks to redress this imbalance. It emphasizes the importance of the internal approach, not as an alternative but, rather, as a complement to the external approach and develops a framework for analyzing administrative justice in terms of "trade-offs" between different normative models of administrative decision-making. The second part of the article demonstrates how this approach to the study of administrative justice has informed research on the impact of computerization on social security in the United Kingdom; on decision making in the Scottish prison system; on the assessment of special educational needs in England and Scotland; and on the computerization of social security in thirteen countries. The article concludes by attempting to show that this approach to the study of administrative justice satisfies all the defining characteristics of the socio-legal paradigm.     

Distributive Justice and Attitudes Toward the Welfare State

Current debates concerning the viability of the welfare state evoke the question of the social bases of support of the welfare state. Past research has documented fairly consistent relationships between sociodemographic characteristics and attitudes toward welfare policies. Yet, the nature of these relationships is not well understood. In the paper we argue that the level of support for the welfare state is largely determined by the principles of distributive justice espoused by individuals as well as their images of society. We develop a theoretical framework, which outlines the structural relationship between social attributes, principles of justice, perceived conflict, and support for the welfare state. Using data from a recent population survey on the legitimation of inequality, conducted in Israel in 1999 (N = 1057), we test a number of hypotheses. For the empirical analysis we use structural equation modeling with multiple indicators. Our findings reveal substantial support for policies aimed at reducing inequality. At the same time we find strong support for rewards according to merit and unequal earnings distribution. The impact of social attributes on attitudes toward the welfare state is partially mediated by the justice principles and images of society.     

分配正义与收益公正分配

收益公正分配是转型时期社会公正的重要维度,维系人权保护、经济发展、社会稳定与国家治理,蕴涵着分配正义理论。多种因素决定经济法分配正义是复合正义,强化在市场分配机制基础上的国家再分配职能,以促进社会基本结构的公正。经济法分配正义理论通过奠定收益分配之理论基础,提供收益分配之制度属性的路径促进收益公正分配,进而实现以社会公正为中心的可持续经济发展,推动中国社会顺利转型。而以分配正义为衡量尺度,我国收益分配制度需要进一步完善。     

A Taxonomy of Normative and Empirically Oriented Theories of Distributive Justice

The study proposes a taxonomy that maps and organizes various normative (ought) and empirically oriented (is) theories of distributive justice, with the aim of examining possible relations between these two research traditions. The taxonomy distinguishes between theories according to two shared dimensions of content: (a) microjustice versus macrojustice principles and (b) the unidimensional versus multidimensional character of these principles. The combination of these dimensions yields four groups of theories of distributive justice: unidimensional macro (the utilitarian approach); multidimensional macro (Rawls' theory of justice); unidimensional micro (desert and equity theories); and multidimensional micro (Miller's theory and the multiprinciple approach). A fifth group of hybrid theories is identified (including Walzer's and Jasso's theory of justice), which is built upon the layers of the other taxonomy cells, combining elements of macro- and microjustice and emphasizing the multidimensional character of distributive justice. The analysis revealed that the empirical and normative traditions have much in common. In certain cases, as with the utilitarian approach and Rawls' theory, empirical research has sought correspondence between the ought and the is. In other cases, such as with equity theory and the multiprinciple approach, it has used some basic normative ideas and assumptions as its starting point. Nevertheless, these research traditions often develop in parallel ways without sufficient mutual recognition or interaction. The study concludes by considering possible exchanges that may develop between these two traditions, examining to what extent and how philosophical–normative and empirically oriented research can contribute to one another.     

分配正义的两个考察维度

本文基于政治哲学的视野,从持有—转让—矫正、起点—过程—终点两个维度具体讨论社会基本结构的分配正义问题。分配的每一个具体环节都应是平等的基本自由权利的具体呈现,并受到平等的基本自由权利的反思性平衡。社会基本结构对于财富转让具有背景性规定意义,二次分配的矫正正义性可以得到契约论的充分辩护;起点公平是以人自由存在能力为核心的人的存在关系状态,社会财富分配在起点正义基础之上经过合规则的程序过程所达到的终点,既是平等基本自由权利的实现,同时又是新过程的起点。     

有利的法——实质正义的极端化

我国《涉外民事关系法律适用法》在部分涉外关系的法律适用方面要求选择有利于保护某一方当事人的实体法。这种规定虽然有体现冲突法实质正义追求的积极意义,但也为法院查明和准确适用外国法增加了难度,不利于司法任务的简单化。所谓有利的法,要求法院在众多可适用的法中,通过比较选择一个能最好保护一方当事人利益的实体法,这其实是美国最好的法选法方法的翻版。冲突法实质正义的趋向应当是有限度的,不应取代实体法所应发挥的作用,否则会破坏法律选择的稳定性和可预见性,丧失冲突法的规范价值和存在意义。鉴于该法生效时间不长,一时难以修改,可以考虑通过司法解释对之予以适当矫正。     

From Workers to Migrants,from Distributive Justice to Inclusion: Exploring the Changing Social Democratic Imagination

There is little awareness that from the perspective of distributive justice, a transnational market society exercises a justice‐disabling effect. No longer is society perceived to be a system of co‐operation, the net product of which is to be distributed among all participants fairly, but rather viewed as a composite of uncoordinated templates for the individual pursuit of opportunities. A society of this type does no longer regard a centralised political effort at redistribution as its essential objective; rather, its most fundamental principle concerns equal access to opportunities without regard to nationality or local preference. Such a concern with inclusion appears to be at odds with the received vision of distributive justice whose realisation presupposes bounded solidarity and, hence, closure.     

Keeping Up with the Joneses Affects Perceptions of Distributive Justice

An experimental field study investigated why people of higher social standing might jump to the conclusion that an injustice has occurred when an authority implements a program that benefits some constituents but not others. High-status individuals are uniquely vulnerable to downward mobility, especially in the event that a situation does not benefit them, but does benefit their high-status peers. In our study, students in a university course were asked to judge a bonus program by which the grades for some would increase and the grades for others would remain the same. Two framing conditions were used, each providing an example in which only one of two students would benefit from the program. In the peer-gets-ahead condition, the two students were of equal status before the program acted to differentiate them, and in the inferior-catches-up condition, the two students differed in status before the program acted to equate them. A majority of students responded favorably to the program, although this number was affected strongly by framing, with almost unanimous approval in the inferior-catches-up condition and comparatively modest approval in the peer-gets-ahead condition. Objections in the latter condition were most frequent among high-status students, who were implicitly uncomfortable with the possibility that their status could decrease relative to some of their high-status peers. Explicitly, their objections used the language of social injustice, especially claims of distributive unfairness. We argue that these perceptions of injustice are a cognitive manifestation of an aversion to any situation that could result in downward mobility.     

论刑罚效益的实现途径

刑罚效益是指刑罚的设置及其运行给社会生活所带来的预防、惩罚和改造犯罪的直接效果以及由此进一步地对国家的政治、经济、文化等方面所产生的间接效果与国家为设置、实施和执行刑罚所投入的资源成本之间的比值.其基本要求是以最小的刑罚成本取得最大的刑罚效益.刑罚效益的实现是一个过程,刑罚创制要强调刑罚的有限性和严厉性;刑罚裁量应注意刑罚的公正性与节俭性;刑罚执行则应坚持一体化原则和扩大非监禁刑的适用.     

Towards an Integration of Distributive Justice,Procedural Justice,and Social Resource Theories

The aim of this paper is to formulate new and more precise predictions regarding behavioral reactions to distributive and procedural injustice via insights from resource theory. The three theories share focus on discrepancies between actual and ideal states of existence as well as on psychological and behavioral reactions to discrepancy. But they also differ from each other in their conceptualizations and theorizing about these matters. Equity theory conceptualizes discrepancy as a perceived mismatch between inputs and outcomes; multiprinciple distributive justice and procedural justice theories view discrepancy as a mismatch between expected and applied distribution and procedural rules, respectively. Resulting feelings of inequity/injustice may trigger attempts to restore justice. Within the framework of resource theory, discrepancy concerns an inappropriate match between the nature of the provided and received resources. This leads to frustration which, in turn, may trigger attempts at retaliation. Limitations of the theories are discussed, with particular focus on their inability to match specific discrepancies with appropriate behavioral reactions. Behavioral predictions are based upon established congruence between behavioral reactions and violated procedural rules as well as type of inequity, as determined via their respective resource isomorphism. Limitations of the present integration attempt are discussed.     

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.     

Toward the Assessment of Procedural and Distributive Justice in Resolving Family Disputes

The first phase of this study focused on the development of comprehensive, conceptually integrated measures of procedural and distributive justice in the context of family decision making. In the second phase, these measures were used to examine older adolescents' justice appraisals of specific family disputes and the relation of these justice appraisals to family systems functioning along dimensions of conflict and cohesion. A Family Justice Inventory was constructed, which included two global indices (one for procedural justice and one for outcome fairness) and 13 subscales: 9 measuring specific facets of the procedural justice construct and 4 measuring specific dimensions of the distributive justice construct. Factor analysis revealed that the 13 Family Justice Inventory subscales could be reduced to 5 interpretable procedural justice factors (personal respect, status recognition, process control, correction, and trust) and 4 interpretable distributive justice factors (decision control, need, equality, and equity). Using procedural justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, correction, and trust each accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, both decision control and need accounted for unique variance in family conflict and family cohesion. Using both procedural and distributive justice factor scores in regression analyses, personal respect, status recognition, and trust each accounted for unique variance in both family conflict and family cohesion. Additionally, equity also accounted for unique variance in family conflict but not family cohesion and the direction of the relationship was positive, that is, more equity in resolving specific family disputes was associated higher levels of general family conflict.