Are inputs sometimes outcomes? Some thoughts on definition in distributive justice

This paper argues that the central concepts of justice theory (e.g., inputs and outcomes) have not been well defined and that this lack of precision in definition has led to subsequent ostensible inconsistencies in empirical findings. We offer definitions of both inputs and outcomes in a manner that facilitates more formal theoretical formulations and specifies a functional relationship between the two. In addition, the concept of relevance is discussed. This discussion highlights the difference in determinations of what is relevant to an outcome and the moral desirability of the distribution rule producing those outcomes. We suggest that the perception of what is relevant to the production of an outcome and how much it should be weighted is a source of potential conflict and/or disagreement between groups who are allocators or recipients of resource distributions. The potential disjuncture between what is considered relevant and what is considered moral in terms of allocation decisions is a potential source of dissatisfaction and feelings of injustice across groups. The discussion also suggests that it is not simply a difference in rule preference across groups that may lead to negative feelings regarding allocations but even when groups agree on the rule they may not agree on either the factors to be included in the assessment of relevance or on the morality of the distribution resulting from such assessments. Finally we introduce the concept of exchange domain as a mechanism for facilitating theoretical development.     

DIFFERENTIAL CRIMINAL PATTERNS OF NARCOTIC ADDICTS OVER AN ADDICTION CAREER*

In a further study of the addiction-crime relationship, 214 narcotic addicts were classified according to their criminal involvement during a 2-year preaddiction period. The sample was divided into two groups—those who reported involvement in any of 20 categories of criminal activity (N = 108) and those who reported no such activity (N = 106). The criminal behavior and drug-use patterns of the two groups were then compared during subsequent addiction and nonaddiction periods. As expected, the impact of addiction was much more prominent in the low-crime group. The implications of results for rehabilitation strategies are discussed.     

How powerful are public bureaucrats as voters?

Empirical evidence is collected and discussed regarding the influence of public bureaucrats on government sector outcome in their capacity as consumer-voters. It is necessary to isolate the specific effect of working in the public sector (compared to other occupations) on voting participation and on the probability to support an increase in the public budget. For a balanced evaluation of public bureaucrats' power, other forms of their influencing the government sector outcome need to be taken into account.