Culture,values, and beliefs about economic justice

We examine the relationship between values and beliefs about economic justice by conducting a cross-cultural analysis. Social values of Americans and West Germans are compared and the relationships between values and beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of business profits are examined. Data are from the 1984 General Social Survey and its West German counterpart, the 1984 ALLBUS; both surveys contain identical value and economic justice items. We find that among citizens in both countries beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of business profits are related to values even when income and education are held constant, but the relationship is stronger in West Germany. For Americans, beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of business profits are related primarily to conservative values (beliefs that greater efforts lead to greater rewards). In addition, the positive influence of conservative values and of income level on fairness judgments is greater for Americans with higher levels of education. For West Germans, beliefs about the fairness of business profits are related both to conservative and to liberal values (beliefs that class divisions persist). In general, economic fairness judgments of West Germans have a strong ideological basis, but polarization associated with differing ideologies is found. Economic fairness judgments of Americans showed both a simpler ideological basis and some relationship to self-interest. The influence of both factors on Americans' fairness judgments seemed to be affected by socialization due to education. Results are discussed in terms of the prevailing economic ideologies in both countries.     

The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior

To investigate the relationship between fairness and organizational outcomes, the present study examined the survey responses of government employees at six Federal installations. Indices of procedural and distributive fairness were factor-analytically derived. Multiple regression analyses indicated that both the procedural measures and the distributive measures were significantly related to measures of job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, conflict/harmony, trust in management, and turnover intention. Procedural fairness accounted for significantly more variance than distributive fairness in each of these criterion measures, except for turnover intention. These findings are related to conceptual and methodological issues concerning procedural fairness and organizational behavior.     

Procedural justice research

During the past decade the study of the psychology of procedural justice has become well established within the field of justice. It has been widely found that people are as concerned with the fairness of the way decisions are made as they are with the fairness of those decisions (i.e., distributive justice). This paper identifies the questions which have dominated research on procedural justice during the past decade, discusses the conclusions which have been reached about those questions, and suggests important areas for future exploration by procedural justice researchers.     

Welfare state, unemployment, and social justice: Judgments on the rights and obligations of the unemployed

This article reports judgments on the rights and obligations of the unemployed in The Netherlands. A large majority of the Dutch population is shown to support (i) the unemployed’s right to social security as well as their obligation to work, (ii) the principle that declining a job offering should be punished, and (iii) harsh sanctions in some specific cases of job refusal. An emphasis on the obligation to work results from conservative attitudes regarding both distributive justice (economic conservatism) and retributive justice (cultural conservatism). Furthermore, conservative attitudes regarding distributive justice derive from a privileged economic position (especially high income and infrequent experience of unemployment), whereas conservative attitudes regarding retributive justice result from a restricted cultural position (low level of education, technical rather than cultural type of education, and limited involvement in arts and culture).     

Why procedural justice in organizations?

This article reviews the existing research and theory on procedural justice and considers how it may be applied to the study of organizational behavior. It begins by distinguishing between the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice and noting the historical contexts within which they emerged. Existing conceptual contributions and the research inspired by them are reviewed. The few existing studies applying procedural justice notions to organizational contexts are summarized, and the contributions of the articles to the present issue of this journal are reviewed relative to these efforts. The article closes by discussing the dual benefits of studying procedural justice in organizations: the enhanced understanding of the concept of justice and the behavior of people in organizations.     

Economic justice in later life: A Canadian perspective

A view of distributive or economic justice is presented. Economic justice can best be achieved through the construction and administration of social policies that promote equality of condition and opportunity such that people are able to achieve equitable outcomes based on their needs and the community's assessment of their contributions. A discussion of the income security situation of older Canadians provides an empirical vehicle for illustrating this view. The point is made that before economic justice can prevail social policies must be developed such that current levels of structured inequality are significantly moderated. Equity will be realized only when there is a shift in policy-making such that claims of citizenship take precedence over those claims based on the rights of property.     

论社会保障制度的政治道德基础——分配正义

社会保障制度不仅是人类消极地适应工业化时代经济和社会问题的产物,它还有着深厚的政治道德基础.本文从分配正义的角度揭示了社会保障制度的规范意义,阐明了分配正义原则的理论内涵,介绍了西方分配正义原则的当代争论,并从分配正义角度对我国社会保障制度的建设进行了理论思索.     

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.     

Justice and the neutral state: A postmodern,feminist critique of lehning's account of justice

In this journal, Lehning (1990) defended the liberal view of political justice, arguing on behalf of a comprehensive principle of state neutrality as the linchpin of justice. By failing to deal with the postmodern challenge to the Enlightenment-liberalist conception of neutrality and by thoroughly ignoring the feminist understanding in which neutrality actually conceals a masculinist bias, Lehning's analysis is seriously undermined with respect to its possibility for understanding, let alone for accomplishing political justice.     

Sentiments of justice

In empirical research on social inequality one question remains largely open: Why are certain types of social inequalities legitimate or not? Three theoretical approaches to this question are discussed: the universalist, the cultural, and the interactionist approach. The interactionist approach is defended: Sentiments of justice can be predicted or deduced from the system in which the actors are located. It is important to know whether actors have reasons to be interested in the system of interaction in question, including reasons for approving the rules and the mode of its functioning. At the same time, the existence of an unrestricted residue must also be recognized: With good reasons one group of individuals can find that a certain state of affairs is just, another group that it is unjust. Because divergences of opinion are inescapable, certain questions pertaining to the issue of social justice can only be resolved by the method of regulated political debate. Questions of social justice can in no way be resolved a priori.     

经济法的价值理念和基本原则

目前一些关于经济法理念、价值以及基本原则的讨论,除了语言表述上的差异外,内涵上也有很大不同。笔者认为,经济法的价值并不能脱离法律价值之公平、秩序、自由的范畴,但必须具有其独特的解释;而经济法的基本原则则应当回应和体现其对法律价值解释的意义。本文试图梳理经济法价值理念与基本原则的关系,并将经济法的基本原则表述为:适度干预原则、公共利益原则、合理竞争原则、弱者保护原则。     

Workplace justice and employee worth

Distributive and procedural justice gain new meaning in light of other distinctions about how organizations value employees (the employees' “worth”). Fair compensation gives employees worth as achieved status: how the employee is like some employees (similarly rewarded) and not like others (dissimilarly rewarded). But employees also want to be treated uniquely as individuals and in other ways to be treated like all other employees, both reflecting worth as ascribed status. Such worth need not involve the distribution of outcomes; it can be gained if procedures function as ends in themselves. Different types of worth thus become the source of different criteria for justice. Based on a paper entitled “Justice as Worth,” which was prepared for the Third International Conference on Social Justice research (held in the Netherlands during July 1991).     

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.     

论作为高层次伦理规范的正义

正义是古往今来人们所憧憬所讴歌的景状 ,从柏拉图到罗尔斯 ,西方学人叙说了数不清的关于正义的见解 ,既贡献了种种经典性论说 ,也使正义成为一张普洛透斯似的脸。正义实际上不是虚玄的事物 ,它也像法和道德一样 ,是为社会生活提供标准和指明方向的规范 ,不过不是普通的规范 ,而是高层次伦理规范。正义对主体的精神和行为都予以调整。正义不取文本形式 ,不是明文记载的制度 ,而是以观念化的形态存在于人的头脑、心灵、社会舆论和历史文化的积淀之中。正义是人们无法捧读的 ,但它却像时间一样 ,时刻就在我们身边。正义是伦理规范体系中规格和境界最高的规范 ,它以一系列美德或善为其基本内容。正义要求个人具备公平、公正、公道、正直、合理的美德 ,要求国家和社会体现自由、平等、安全这一类善 ,而法如果与正义结合便成为良法。正义的强制力比法更深刻 ,它以理性为强制力量 ,不以国家强力和法定程序保障其实现。正义的触角或统辖范围远远大于法的范围 ,它是关涉领域最广、时空跨度最大、尤具普适性的社会规范。在迄今衍生的形形色色正义理论中 ,亚里士多德和罗尔斯的学说 ,影响尤为深远。正义具有绝对和相对两重性 ,是绝对和相对的统合 ;具有主观和客观两重性 ,是主观和客观的统合。正义是以具体的形式     

Fabrications of justice

This paper focuses on false beliefs that create or maintain injustice, particularly those false beliefs held by the unjustly disadvantaged. Those who benefit from injustice may intentionally lead those disadvantaged by unjust distributions, procedures, or interpersonal treatment to believe that no injustice exists, that the injustice is minimal, or that the injustice that exists cannot be reduced. Research on procedural and interactional justice suggests that perceived injustice is reduced where those affected by a decision have an opportunity to offer an opinion (voice) prior to the decision, and where the decision maker offers a justifying account for the decision. False beliefs in control and dignity may be intentionally created by decision makers to perpetuate their unjust advantage. Suggestions are offered to identify the processes through which fabrications of justice have their effects and the situations in which they are most likely to occur.Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Secaucus, New Jersey, July 1–5, 1988 and at the International Conference on Social Justice and Societal Problems, Leiden, The Netherlands, August 1–3, 1988. Thanks for their coments on earlier drafts to participants at both events, and to three anonymous reviewers forSocial Justice Research.     

Critical justice consciousness: Social injustice and the criminal justice system

In this essay I examine the importance of social justice to my identity and the changing interpretation of my “justice consciousness” resulting from changes in my work life. Drawing on my academic experience as well as my experience as an attorney, I describe the meaning that social justice has for me. I also examine the connections that I see between social injustice and the operation of the critical justice system.     

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.     

Doing justice to justice

Adshead's recognition that only when taken together can the many different conceptions of justice accommodate what is called for in the particularly demanding setting of forensic mental health care, is to be applauded. Each must be honoured and built into the systems of assessment and treatment that are the tasks of the forensic psychiatrist, she demonstrates. Adshead's far‐reaching revisions could resolve much that is troubling about the present practice of forensic psychiatry. Yet how much these revisions can overcome the moral dilemmas associated with dual roles in forensic psychiatry, is not so clear.     

Social position,ideology, and distributive justice

This paper addresses two important questions regarding distributive justice. First we ask whether people use standards or principles of distributive justice regarding the allocation of income. The study confirms our expectation that there are at least two principles, viz., the merit and the need principle. Our data show that there is no generally held consensus about the applicability of these two principles. Second, we looked for explanations to explain variations in adherence to these principles. The literature suggests five different theses: 1. self-interest; 2. ideology; 3. enlightenment; 4. historical shift; and 5. gender. Results provide qualified support for the Theses 1, 2 and 4. Class, ideology, and age affect the preferences for the principles of justice. Further elaboration suggests the data point to a specific version of the self-interest thesis, viz., the underdog thesis. Theses 3 and 5 are not confirmed. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals

One-hundred-seventeen college students performed a task on which they received a negative, neutral, or positive performance evaluation. The evaluations were made by the experimenter who (i) kept a diary documenting subjects' performance, (ii) observed their performance but did not keep a diary, or (iii) made the evaluation on no apparent basis (control). It was found that both the evaluation procedure and the evaluation outcome itself were perceived as being fairer when diaries were used as the basis for making evaluations relative to either subjects in the observation procedure group or the control group. The practical implications of these findings for performance appraisals are considered along with the implications for conceptual work on procedural justice.