Distributive Justice and Crime

The heavy concentration of crime on a few areas, and the concentration on the chronically victimised within those areas, together illustrate the gross inequality of the risk of crime victimisation. This inequality also characterises other hazards of life. Criminology has too often reduced the problem of crime to the problem of the offender. Recognising crime hazard as an issue of distributive justice requires a different mind set. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 recognises the drivers of crime as lying outside criminal justice, but does not put in place a panhazard analysis of the kind required, community safety being presented as a type of crime prevention. Movement towards panhazard thinking may well be somewhat facilitated by the workingthrough of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, actions flowing from section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, and a reconsideration of how emergency services might work.     

Distributive and Procedural Justice in Seven Nations

The paper examines the impact of distributive justice and procedural justice variables on judgments in seven countries (Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, Spain, and the United States). Subjects were presented with each of two experimental vignettes: one in which the actor unsuccessfully appeals being fired from his job and one in which the actor unsuccessfully goes to an employment agency to seek a job; they were asked to rate the justness of the outcome and how fairly the actor had been treated. The vignettes manipulated deservingness and need of the actor (distributive justice factors) and impartiality and voice in the hearing (procedural justice factors). Four hypotheses were tested: first, a distributive justice hypothesis that deservingness would be more important than need in these settings; second, a procedural justice hypothesis that the importance of voice and impartiality vary depending on the nature of the encounter and the forum in which it is resolved; third, because of their recent socialist experience, Central and Eastern European respondents make greater use of need information and less use of deservingness information than Western respondents; and fourth, that distributive justice and procedural justice factors interact. The distributive justice hypothesis is supported in both vignettes. The procedural justice hypothesis receives some support. Impartiality is more important in the first vignette and voice is more important in the second vignette. The interaction hypothesis was not supported in the first vignette, but does receive some support in the second vignette. The cultural hypothesis is not supported in either vignette. The implications for distributive and procedural justice research are discussed.     

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。     

Race, Income, and College in 25 Years: Evaluating Justice O'Connor's Conjecture

In Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice O’Connor conjecturedthat in 25 years affirmative action in college admissions willbe unnecessary. We project the test score distribution of blackand white college applicants 25 years from now, focusing onthe role of black–white family income gaps. Economic progressalone is unlikely to narrow the achievement gap enough in 25years to produce today’s racial diversity levels withrace-blind admissions. A return to the rapid black–whitetest score convergence of the 1980s could plausibly cause blackrepresentation to approach current levels at moderately selectiveschools, but not at the most selective schools.     

分配正义与个人所得税法改革

为解决收入分配格局中劳动报酬比例过低和居民收入比例过低的突出问题,需要高度重视税收调节在实现分配正义中的积极作用。为此,我国个人所得税法改革的目标应当是在逐步提高个人所得税收入规模的基础上,侧重于强化其调节收入分配的功能,选择综合与分类相结合的课税模式。在个人所得税立法中,实体制度建构的重点是完善费用扣除制度,改革和优化税率结构;征管程序制度变革的关键是建立源泉扣缴与自行申报相结合的征管模式,健全个人收入信息监控制度。应当制定推进个人所得税法改革的工作意见,加快税收征管法修订步伐。     

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.     

Gender and Race Differences in Delinquent Careers

Abstract Studies of delinquent careers have often tracked only male offenders, and have almost always failed to explore the interaction of race and gender in delinquency. This study tracks a cohort of youth whose first referral to juvenile court was in 1980, and explores the role played by both race and gender in official delinquent careers. Findings reveal that both race and gender play a significant role in official delinquency. Looking first at female delinquency, this research finds that white and nonwhite females do not differ significantly in the types of offenses they commit. Moreover, if girls are “chronic” delinquents, their offenses are most often trivial rather than serious. With males, racial differences emerge in both seriousness and chronic nature of delinquency. Nonwhite males in this cohort are more likely to be referred for personal offenses and less likely to be referred for public order and victimless offenses. Nonwhite males are also significantly more likely to become recidivists, and to have more seriously delinquent careers. This article discusses the implications of these findings, particularly with reference to the “convergence theory” of delinquency, which suggests that race plays a stronger role than gender in female delinquency. Finally, the article considers the policy implications of the current range of definitions of “chronic” delinquency.     

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.     

Reflecting Upon Etic and Emic Perspectives on Distributive Justice

The study of distributive justice may be examined using two research perspectives. The first, etic perspective seeks to unveil the common characteristics that characterize the spectrum of distributive justice phenomena across different cultures and circumstances. This perspective focuses on the universal aspects of justice behavior, namely, general laws and causal explanations. The second, emic perspective focuses on the ways in which justice behavior is expressed in specific socio-cultural contexts. This paper proposes a three-part reflection on these two perspectives on distributive justice. First, we review the ways in which the emic, culturally specific perspective has hitherto been incorporated into research on distributive justice; second, we examine the ways which the etic and emic perspectives are employed in two empirical studies on justice perception in Israel; and, finally, we suggest possible ways in which an extended emic perspective can be further incorporated in the study of distributive justice. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Social Justice Conference, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany, March 2005.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

The Impact of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Social Service Workers

The concepts of fairness and justice are embodied within the organizing principle of social justice. Although social justice is a primary focus of social work, social service workers are not always treated with fairness by their own employers. The results from a survey of 255 social service employees from a variety of agencies in Northwest Ohio indicate that distributive justice and procedural justice, two dimensions of organizational justice, are both significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, with procedural justice having two to three times the impact of distributive justice.     

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.     

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.     

Integrating Critical Race Theory and Postmodernism Implications of Race, Class, and Gender

This paper begins with an overview of criticalrace theory tenets, which in turn will befollowed by an overview of postmodernism. These bodies of knowledge consist of an arrayof ideologies; but for the purpose of thisarticle only the fundamentals of each will bediscussed. Thereafter, an integration ofthese two contemporary areas of thought willdemonstrate the constructive linkage ofcritical race theory and postmodern theory. Theintegrations that follow will emphasize how acollaboration of critical race theory tenetsand postmodern thought can contribute to asuccessful, and more importantly improved,analysis of the social constructions of race,class, and gender. In addition, theintersectional analysis presented willdemonstrate a more informative and betterunderstanding of the subtleties of blatant andmore hidden forms of race, class, and gender.