Theories Of Distributive Justice Research Articles

The Marxian Concept of Justice Based on Historical Materialism

The question of “Marx and justice” has been a key theoretical and practical issue that has attracted academic attention and discussion both at home and abroad since the birth of Marxism, and in particular since the 1970s. From the perspective of historical materialism, Marx’s concept of justice is rooted in material practice rather than abstraction; it is the organic union of distributive justice and productive justice that transcends the limitations of traditional ideas on distributive justice. Marx’s concept of justice as the union of distributive justice and productive justice is mainly reflected in his Capital. Allen Wood and Z.I. Husami, with other Western scholars, have engaged in a dispute over the question of “Marx and justice.” Wood and Husami’s views, though quite different, are confined to the theory of distributive justice. John Rawls’ justice theory, which emphasizes equity, has also failed to reach the lofty heights of Marx’s theory of justice. Marx’s concept of justice, as developed in Capital, has the “full and free development of every individual” at its core and integrates distributive justice and productive justice. It transcends the abstract concept of justice of the bourgeoisie that centering on equal rights reflects the dialectical unity of historical logic, the logic of reality and the logic of theory and practice.

Optimal Tax Theory as a Theory of Distributive Justice

The literature on taxation and transfers primarily relies on two theories of distributive justice: resource egalitarianism and welfarism, as elaborated through optimal tax theory.In recent years, optimal tax theory has garnered even greater prominence. But nonwelfarists argue it fails to address a number of serious philosophical objections. This article considers the primary critiques of optimal tax theory, especially by resource egalitarians. It argues the gap between these two theories is narrower than most appreciate. Indeed, once one focuses on egalitarian optimal tax theory and reads that literature broadly, the ideal policy design principles implied by each theory largely mimic the other. In addition, this article explores how both theories have dealt with concerns that they respond inadequately to preferences to help or harm others, hold individuals unduly responsible for their choices, or fail to account for real world social dynamics and human behavior. It argues that egalitarian optimal tax theory has responded—or, as laid out here, could respond—more effectively to these objections than resource egalitarianism.Specifically, optimal tax theory should adopt three innovations: (1) applying welfare-weighted Pigouvian taxes and subsidies to other-regarding preferences, (2) modeling the optimal endowment tax as one that is risk-neutral and only partially based on ex ante potential income, and (3) treating choices as providing less information about well-being when they are further in the past or relatively predictable. More explicitly and consistently adopting these assumptions and modeling approaches would clarify that egalitarian optimal tax theory does not entail the extreme limits on autonomy, and unrelenting responsibility for prior choices, that have troubled nonwelfarists.Instead, the focus of egalitarian optimal tax theory would move toward sequalizing outcomes, and away from equalizing ex ante endowments.

Pacta servanda sunt? Jus post-bellum and transitional (in)justice in post-war and in post-authoritarian regime context

Five chapters constitute this essay: 1) In an international context of and transitional (in)justice in post-war and in post-authoritarian regime context, after presenting an overview of the relation between conflict and institutional evolution, firstly I will turn to the interdependence of justice and virtue. Secondly, the Kelsen’s ideas of the demise of sovereignty will be examined, along with these problems: how should citizens react to the fall of a non-democratic regime? How should they initiate reconstruction in a country where conflicts are coming to an end? 2) Even if Western societies today are marked by a broad liberal consensus in favour of toleration, here, starting from the “inegalitarian charge”, I will attack toleration as an egalitarian ideal, concluding by appealing to “right to interference” criterion. 3) How should non-liberal people be treated in liberal societies? To which extent can illiberal views be tolerated? Criticizing Rawls, I reject the use of mere reasonableness, arguing that is bound to fail. 4) Instead of asking whether or not the relevant sort of institutional coercion exists, I question whether this justice requires the supply of various global public goods; I suggest that these cannot be supplied without international coercion; fourthly, I sketch some theory of global distributive (in)justice. 5) Finally, I will distinguish some aspects of political equality, rebutting an objection from legitimacy minimalism or political libertarianism.

Competitive balance in interscholastic basketball: An examination of policy and non-policy factors

ABSTRACTDisproportional state tournament success within interscholastic boys basketball has been the catalyst for competitive balance policies. State athletic associations adopt policies based on a variety of characteristics that often include public/private status. Using the theory of distributive justice as a framework, the purpose of this study was to determine the competitive balance landscape of boys basketball, as well as investigate which school characteristics most impact disproportionate success. Results indicated that private schools in the smallest enrollment classifications had the highest disproportionate success, urban private schools had the highest levels of sustained success, policies beyond enrollment classifications are largely ineffective, and predicting widespread success was not possible due to the nuances among states. The practical application indicates that national or regional competitive balance polices are not pragmatic, but urban private school success in smaller enrollment classifications should be one consideration for individual state policy development.

¿Es Rawls responsable por el igualitarismo de la suerte? Legitimidad y Responsabilidad en la justicia distributiva.

El igualitarismo de la suerte es una teoría de justicia distributiva que incluye consideraciones de responsabilidad atributiva individual para definir las obligaciones distributivas. Se presenta como un intento de recomponer cierta consistencia interna a la teoría rawlsiana y evitar algunas de sus consecuencias “inequitativas”. El artículo defiende la consistencia interna del proyecto rawlsiano sin necesidad de incluir un criterio sensible a la responsabilidad atributiva individual, ya que la inclusión de tal criterio resultaría ilegítima desde el punto de vista rawlsiano.

What Is Enough? Sufficiency, Justice, and Health

Carina Fourie and Annette Rid’s edited volume What Is Enough? Sufficiency, Justice, and Health comprises fifteen original contributions which explore the possibility of a sufficientarian approach to healthcare priority setting and resource allocation. Sufficientarianism is a well-established theory of distributive justice, which tells us that justice requires that each person has “enough,” and assigns particular importance to a threshold level of goods under which no person must fall. Sufficiency is under-explored as a distributive principle in the healthcare context, and this book makes a strong case for its inclusion among more familiar principles of justice such as utility, priority to the worst off, and equality.

An Analysis of Charlie's Law and Alfie's Law.

The Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases were high-profile cases involving disagreements between the parents of young infants and medical practitioners, which have given impetus to pre-existing calls for law reform that have been rebranded as 'Charlie's Law' and 'Alfie's Law'. I argue against the proposal to replace the best interest test, which is currently determinative in such contentious cases, with a significant harm test, as it would render UK law divergent from international law. I also employ critical theory to rebut the notion that parents are the best decision makers and refute criticisms of clinicians (who reflexively acknowledged the limits of medicine). I utilise theories of distributive justice to demonstrate that legal reform may exacerbate unfairness, and case law to show that it may be unworkable. Nonetheless, I apply critical and Foucauldian theory to critique the lack of patient and public empowerment within the NHS and I endorse the proposal to ensure that mediation is offered in contentious cases, as this may empower patients and their carers. I also aver that the best interests test should be informed by clearer criteria regarding the allocation of finite resources, which the public should influence via the democratisation of the NHS.

An Examination of Competitive Balance within Interscholastic Football

Interscholastic football has the highest participation rates among high school students in the United States. The popularity and nostalgic connection of football is widespread, but competitive balance is often challenged due to differing characteristics of high schools. This study utilized the theory of distributive justice and data from high school athletic associations in all 50 states and District of Columbia to consider which variables (public/private status, school population, rural/urban location, geographical region, and policies) may impact competitive balance at the state-championship level of interscholastic football. The results confirmed that traditionally strong private schools generally located in the Midwest and Northeast win state titles at disproportionately high rates. No other variable was as powerful or significant as the public/private variable. The findings of the study also challenged the effectiveness of existing policies designed to curb private school success. These results can serve pragmatic efforts to ensure competitive balance within interscholastic football.

Personal Responsibility in Health and Health Care: Luck Egalitarianism as a Plausible and Flexible Approach to Health

Allocating health care resources based on personal responsibility is a prominent and controversial idea. This article assesses the plausibility of such measures through the lens of luck egalitarianism, a prominent responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice. This article presents a framework of luck egalitarianism in health, which integrates other concerns of justice than health, is pluralist, and is compatible with a wide range of measures for giving lower priority to those deemed responsible. Applying this framework to oral health, the allocation of livers among potential transplant recipients and travel insurance demonstrates that this version of luck egalitarianism is a much more attractive and flexible theory than much of the contemporary discussion allows. This also pertains to its ability to provide plausible answers to two prominent critiques of harshness and intrusiveness. The discussion also shows that the luck egalitarian commitment to eliminating the influence of luck on people’s lives is likely to require substantial redistribution.

Better Off Alone? A Distributive Justice Theory of Self-Determination

If de-colonization and American independence were justified, then it must be that there are certain cases in which secessionist groups have a valid claim to territory. The present paper is a novel attempt at devising a theoretical framework that can successfully make sense of these. Building on Primary Right Theories (Ascriptivist and Plebiscitary) as well as Just Cause Theories (Two-Conditions and Less- Limited), I find their main lacunae to be twofold: an excessively minimal consideration of distributive justice issues in secession cases, and a systemic vulnerability in theory to the threat of secession on economic grounds. To begin filling these gaps in the literature, I propose an original theory on the broader principle of self-determination that goes beyond the secessionist context, grounding my views in a liberal theory of territorial jurisdiction and group rights. What emerges is a nuanced account that can better grapple with the complex and controversial cases of secession that exist in the world today.

Parental Differential Treatment in Families with a Child with a Developmental Disability

Using distributive justice theory as a framework, the purpose of the present mixed methods study was to determine whether parental differential treatment was present and if so, to what degree, in families of children with a developmental disability. Moreover, if present, we examined to what extent parental differential treatment impacted family dynamics. One bilingual (i.e., French-English) family and eight French-speaking families, which were all middle-class families, participated. Mothers, fathers, and siblings who are typically developing were individually questioned during semi-structured interviews and completed the Sibling Inventory of Differential Experiences—Revised questionnaire. Children also completed the Perceived Fairness of Parental Differential Treatment measure. All quantitative data generated by the questionnaires were analyzed descriptively using the SPSS program, whereas interviews were coded using qualitative methods. Specifically, in vivo and axial-thematic coding of the interview data revealed that, according to both parents and children, the degree of parental differential treatment varied across families of children with developmental disabilities; yet, differential treatment was often justified and perceived as necessary by parents and children. These findings provided an overview of struggles and blissful moments that families of children with developmental disabilities may encounter on a daily basis. Implications for practitioners and policy are discussed.

Promoting Distributive Justice in Education and the Challenge of Unpredictability

This article examines how the existence of unpredictability should influence the quest to promote distributive justice in education. First, the article briefly discusses resource allocation in education finance policy and its relationships with existing philosophical theories of distributive justice. It then explains why unpredictability comes into play in education and how this endangers the achievements of distributive justice. It is argued that unpredictability poses a real challenge to enhancing educational justice. Second, the article examines the common policy conception that educational justice can best be promoted by reducing unpredictability through means of increased control. It is maintained that the costs of this solution exceed its benefits. Finally, the article offers alternative routes for dealing with unpredictability in educational resource allocations. It is argued that we have good reasons, both normative and practical, to embrace a new approach for furthering distributive justice in education that takes into account the complexity of the educational system.

¿Cuánta desigualdad es compatible con el federalismo? Sobre los límites de la justicia distributiva federal

La doctrina tradicional sobre federalismo justifica moralmente las desigualdades económicas si son el resultado del autogobierno legítimo de las subunidades federales. El objetivo de este trabajo será discutir esa afirmación y examinar los fundamentos filosóficos de la descentralización económica federal con el propósito de delinear las bases de una teoría federal de la justicia distributiva. En primer lugar examino la analogía entre la organización de los estados federales y la organización internacional, en segundo lugar defiendo que las condiciones morales de la legitimidad política en un estado federal engendran demandas distributivas tales que posibiliten a cada subunidad federal su autonomía. Pero además critico la visión de la fraternidad como una virtud política frágil y demandante. Concluyo que la fraternidad provee razones, para reducir la desigualdad económica moralmente admisible, que son más importantes en estados federales territoriales que en estados federales caracterizados por el multiculturalismo.

The Nature of Retributive Justice and Its Demands on the State

The enterprise of state punishment requires the use of limited resources for which there are other competitors, such as national defense, market regulation, and social welfare. How resource-demanding retributive justice will turn out to be depends on how retributivists answer a series of questions concerning the theory’s structure. After elaborating these questions and the varieties of retributive justice that answers to them might generate, I consider the resource demands of retributive justice in the context of competing theories of distributive justice. Various tensions and outright conflicts between the pursuit of retributive and distributive justice are then explored.

Is the Market Wage the Just Wage?

Do markets generate a “just” wage? The answer to this question will depend upon the particular theory of the market that the political economist employs. When comparing actual labor markets with the neoclassical theory of competitive equilibrium as its normative benchmark, Joseph Heath (2018) argues that factor pricing is orthogonal to normative issues such as distributive justice. We argue that Heath’s conclusion, though not invalid, follows from a similar normative benchmark of equilibrium, one that evaluates factor pricing without taking into account the institutional conditions within which factor prices emerge. Though indeed classical political economists and early neoclassical economists failed to deliver an explicit theory of distributive justice, what Heath overlooks is that implicit to their understanding of the market process was an institutional theory of distributive justice.

Rethinking teachers’ production of social justice in rural schools

ABSTRACT In this article I examine how teachers in a rural school in Australia produce social justice through their everyday teaching practices. Drawing on data from a qualitative study using focus groups and semi-structured interviews, I focus on teachers’ enactments of social justice pedagogies amidst social class divisions in the community. I draw on Iris Marion Young’s theory of justice to illustrate how a plural social justice education that includes teaching practices that create a relational process between teachers and students should be based on a politics of distribution, recognition and participation. In particular, I am concerned with Young’s formulation of plural social justice and democratic communication, and with her theorisation that issues of self-respect, self-determination and participation are not reducible to liberal theories of distributive justice that focus solely on the proper allocation of material goods. By rethinking the production of social justice in rural schools, I ultimately contribute to redressing the paucity of research on rural schooling in the field of education and to providing a better understanding of the relationship between a contested concept like justice and the everyday challenges faced by teachers endeavouring to deliver a quality education for all students in their school.

Rawlsian Justice and the Social Determinants of Health

AbstractIn this article, we suggest that the evidence regarding the social determinants of health calls for a deep re‐thinking of our understanding of distributive justice. Focusing on John Rawls's theory of distributive justice in particular, we argue that a full reckoning with the social determinants of health requires a re‐working of Rawls's principles of justice. We argue first that the social bases of health – a Rawlsian conception of the social determinants of health – should be considered a social primary good. We argue second that including the social bases of health as a social primary good would lead the parties to the original position to choose an additional principle of justice and assign it lexical priority over Rawls's second principle. According to this principle, inequalities in people's share of the social bases of health are to be arranged so as to improve the health status of those least advantaged on the social health gradient.

PRIORITARIANISM WITHOUT CONSEQUENTIALISM

ABSTRACT According to prioritarianism, an influential theory of distributive justice, we have a stronger (non-egalitarian) reason to benefit people the worse off these people are (Parfit 2012). Many authors have adopted a consequentialist version of prioritarianism. On this account, we have a consequentialist reason to benefit the worse off because the state of affairs where the worse off gains a given amount of utility is more valuable than the state of affairs where the better off gains roughly the same amount of utility. In this paper, we argue that the consequentialist approach to prioritarianism is problematic. However, it doesn't follow that the prioritarian doctrine per se is groundless. We then suggest that we can make sense of prioritarianism by appeal to a contractualist approach.

Egalitarianism under Severe Uncertainty

In the spring of 2009, a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus, containing a never before witnessed combination of gene segments from human influenza, two forms of swine influenza, and avian influenza, 1 was declared a global pandemic. The UK Government had to decide whether to undertake, at a cost of £1.2 billion (USD 1.9 billion at the time, equivalent to 1 percent of that year’s health budget), an extensive set of preparatory measures, including the purchase of both antiviral medication and a novel vaccine in quantities sufficient to cover the entire UK population, or whether instead to take substantially less costly measures, which would involve having only a limited supply of these medicines and vaccines at hand.2 The possible.

Capacidades, salud y sistemas. Re-pensar la salud de mano de la justicia distributiva

El presente trabajo intenta dar una explicación de la salud y la conformación de sus sistemas, aproximando las teorías de la justicia distributiva y el acceso al desarrollo de las capacidades como una base justa de la estructura de los sistemas de salud. Asimismo, se desarrollan diversas cuestiones sobre la atención al primer nivel en salud como fundamento del desarrollo de las capacidades y la accesibilidad a la diversidad funcional. Se tratará por ello, una redefinición del contractualismo bioético, aplicado a la estructura como base de la justicia y con miras al desarrollo de las capacidades.