Idea Of Distributive Justice Research Articles

Keadilan Ekonomi Islam dan Implementasinya

This paper attempts to answer two questions: what is justice in Islamic economics and what is the manifestation of justice in Islamic economics. This research is library research, by using a qualitative approach which produces descriptive data in the form of written words. The data analysis technique used in this research is hermeneutics. The research results show: First, Islamic economics is based on the idea of distributive justice. The concept of justice in the Islamic economic system is distributive justice, namely treatment of someone according to the services they have performed. With distributive economic justice, everyone will get their rights according to the contribution they make, and at the same time everyone must also be free from exploitation of other people. In other words, Islamic economic justice requires a state of 'neither tyrannizing nor being wronged'. Second, the philosophical value of Islamic economic justice can be applied to various economic activities: products, distribution, consumption, finance, business, development, and so on. The practice of justice in Islamic economics can also be found in the rationality of profit and loss sharing (PLS). One of the characteristics of the Islamic economic system is the distribution of profit and loss. Stakeholders share profit and loss using a PLS system. Muḍarabah and musyarakah are two instruments of distribution in economic activities that provide justice.

Cultural work and contributive justice

ABSTRACT Ideas of contributive justice are concerned with what people give or contribute to society, rather than what they get, as in ideas of distributive justice. This article deals with contributive justice as applied to a specific example of cultural work – work and employment in the UK publicly-funded arts, cultural and creative industries. It is offered mainly as a conceptual discussion rather than a set of concrete policy recommendations. However, given some of the limitations of current distributive models, a principle of universal distribution is postulated, supported by contributive justice as a complementary framework for conceiving and implementing programmes of equal opportunity and ‘creative justice’ in publicly funded cultural work.

What is against an idea of distributive justice? Local responses to in-ward waste disposal in Tokyo

ABSTRACTThis study explores the politics of distributive justice in the siting of locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) by examining local responses to one conception of distributive justice. Distributive justice is a prominent policy consideration in LULU conflicts. Among Tokyo’s 23 wards, Koto ward suffered a disproportionate burden of waste disposal. In 1971, the ward launched a campaign to rectify the alleged injustice, advancing a conception of distributive justice known as in-ward waste disposal (IWWD). The idea was adopted by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and translated into a one-ward-one-incinerator policy, which was recognised as a basic principle until it was abandoned in 2003. However, local responses to this idea were not all positive and objections to it significantly affected the evolution of policymaking. This study examines the responses of ward governments and local residents to IWWD and traces how these responses changed over time by comparing four periods from 1971 to 2008. Results show that IWWD conflicted with different interpretations of distributive justice and reveal the manner in which source reduction, a newly emerging idea of distributive justice, came to challenge IWWD as economic, policy and political conditions changed.

The 21st Century Multilateralism in International Taxation: The Emperor’s New Clothes?

This contribution attempts to shed light on the concept of multilateralism in international taxation. Rather than a shift from bilateralism to multilateralism, the author will argue that unilateralism, bilateralism and multilateralism continuously overlap in this field. This flawed narrative in relation to the shift may allow us to think that the BEPS Project and global transparency in exchanges of information are leading to a global tax law: global decision-making and better solutions for developed as well as for non-developed countries. Instead, the author will claim that the current multilateral frameworks are premised on the benefits principle, which reinforces the division between developed and non-developed countries. The increase in global inequalities and poverty have led the author to propose a different multilateral framework on international taxation based on the idea of distributive justice. In other words, a multilateral framework that moves away from the dichotomy of source v. residence taxation to embrace solidarity is both desirable and feasible. Finally, the article will acknowledge the fact that regional integration processes, defined as “thick multilateralism”, already encapsulate harmonization mechanisms and an idea of justice among the EU Member States that strengthen the struggle against the existing inequalities and asymmetries.

Politics of distributive justice in the siting of waste disposal facilities: the case of Tokyo

Distributive justice is a crucial aspect of disputes over locally unwanted land uses. This study examines the rise and fall in influence of a particular idea of distributive justice that originated in the 23 wards of Tokyo in the early 1970s – namely, that each of the wards should be required to dispose of its own waste within the ward. This idea – in-ward waste disposal (IWWD) – was adopted as a significant principle in waste facility siting plans, but its influence rose and fell over time until the idea was finally abandoned in 2003. Critically reviewing ideational approaches in political studies, the causes and mechanisms behind the changes in IWWD’s influence are elucidated. The result shows the importance of considering multiple, different types of variables and examining the interaction between them to explain the prominence of an idea and its change over time.

Planning allocations and the stubborn north–south divide in Tel Aviv–Jaffa

Several master plans have attempted to lessen the divide between the poor southern neighborhoods of Tel Aviv–Jaffa and the well-off central and northern ones. We compared the planning visions, the main policies and detailed schemes, financing methods, and actual implementation efforts. We found that each planning generation has promoted different development locations, regulations, and allocation methods, and yet implementation has generally been much more durable and with superior socio-spatial impacts in the more affluent areas. To analyze and explain these findings we studied planning allocations in the light of ideas of distributive justice and of urban regime practice. We found that while the welfare state's direct allocation of housing and infrastructure for communities and individuals was not really equal, the later indirect allocations by neoliberal regimes mainly stimulated market forces in the more affluent or attractive areas. We also found that while planning allocation varied in different neighborhoods, the pace and order of planning and realization became crucial elements in urban inequality.

Democratic and Aristocratic Aristotle: An Aristotelian Response to Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach

This paper addresses the problem of how to make ‘democratic’ elements in Aristotle’s political philosophy compatible with his aristocratic framework for distributing political authority. To this end, it is argued that in Aristotle’s framework, the idea of aristocratic governance is justified, because it contributes most greatly to the achievement of the well-being of people in a city (Politics III.9), or the common benefit of a wide range of free individuals (Politics III.6 and 7), and that Aristotle’s argument for the wisdom of the multitude (Politics III.11) is actually not democratic, but rather aristocratic to the extent that he proposes integrating the multitude into the deliberative and judicial processes by identifying their ‘virtuous character’ as a group, not by offering an idea that human beings are created equal. The paper also offers a more constructive criticism of Nussbaum’s capabilities approach by arguing that Aristotle’s aristocratic idea of distributive justice provides more useful insights into the problem of popular participation than Nussbaum’s emphasis on people’s capacity for choosing their own way of life.

Distributive Justice Before the Eighteenth Century: The Right of Necessity

Until recently, few people would have doubted that the idea of distributive justice is old, indeed ancient. Several authors have now challenged this assumption. Most prominently, Samuel Fleischacker argued that distributive justice originates in the eighteenth century. If accurate, this would upset much of what we have taken for granted about an important part of the history of Western political thought. However, the thesis is manifestly flawed. And since that it has already proven influential, it is important to set the record straight. We will focus on the principle of extreme necessity, developed in twelfth and thirteenth century canon law, and subsequently adopted in civil law. Despite its immense importance for the history of political thought, the principle is barely know, and much less discussed. We briefly characterize the main tenets of the principle and show that it meets all the criteria to count as a principle of distributive justice.

Separate Persons Acting Together-Sketching A Theory of Contract Law

This paper explores the following question: if, as John Rawls famously suggests, justice is the first virtue of social institutions, how are we to understand the institution of contract law? On the one hand, many writers take the view that the rules of contracts are merely a tool for bringing about distributive justice; on the other hand, some libertarian writers contend that the rules of contract leave no space for any idea of distributive justice. In this paper, I propose an alternative account. I situate contract law in terms of what John Rawls calls “the social division of responsibility”: society as a whole has to provide individuals with an adequate share of opportunities and resources that they need in order to set and pursue their own conception of the good. Once individuals have those fair shares, citizens have to take responsibility for how their own lives go. An important way that people may pursue their plans is by entering into arrangements with others. This requires a system of contract rules. I argue that justice requires that we understand contract rules in terms of the idea of fair terms of interaction – that is, terms that would be accepted by reasonable persons moved by a desire for a social world in which they, as free and equal, can cooperate with others on terms they accept. The underlying idea is that of reciprocity, that is, the idea that individuals should not set the terms of their interactions with others unilaterally. Those fair terms of interaction are reasonable terms. Thus, in this paper, I claim that contractual interactions should be approached from the perspective of the reasonable person. My aim is to explain the formation of a contract, the legal response to a breach, and other issues that come up with contractual interactions from that perspective.

Dividendo Sociale e Imposta Negativa: due diversi modi di intepretare la redistribuzione

- This article examines two redistributive programs: Negative Income Tax and Universal Basic Income. Its aim is to show that, even if the two programs through the implementation of an appropriate tax-benefit system can get the same distributive outcome, they are deeply different, from both the economic point of view and ethic perspective. The approach adopted integrates positive and normative analysis so that an explicit attention to ethical issues provides a more complete descriptive economics. We show that Negative Income Tax scheme is consistent with the libertarian idea of distributive justice, while Basic Income matches with the egalitarian thought.

Troubled Foundations for Private Law

In The Foundations of Private Law James Gordley argues that the modern private law in common and civil law jurisdictions is best explained on the basis of a neo-Aristotelian theory first developed by a group of 16th century Spanish thinkers known as the ‘late scholastics’. The concepts of distributive and commutative justice that, according to Gordley, lay at core of the scholastics’ theory and that explain, respectively, modern property law and the law of obligations (contract, tort, unjust enrichment), though ignored and disparaged for much of the 19th and 20th centuries, are today familiar to most private law scholars (thanks in part to Gordley’s earlier work). Yet Gordley’s understanding of these concepts and, in particular, of their relationship both to one another and to the apex idea of ‘living a distinctively human life’ is unique, setting his account apart not just from utilitarian and other ‘modern’ accounts of private law, but also from other neo-Aristotelian theories (e.g., those of Ernest Weinrib or Jules Coleman). In Gordley’s presentation, commutative (or ‘corrective’) justice is derived from distributive justice and distributive justice is derived from the idea of the distinctively human life. Confidently traversing a wide range of historical, comparative and theoretical materials, the book’s argument is at once ambitious, learned, and elegantly presented. But as a theoretical account of the foundations of the modern private law it is unpersuasive. The book’s own account of property law suggests that in practice the idea of distributive justice does little, if any, work in explaining the rules we actually have. Nor is it clear how, if at all, distributive justice flows from the allegedly foundational idea of the ’distinctively human life’. As for commutative justice, it is not clear why, if is derived from distributive justice in the way Gordley believes, the courts should care about it. Finally, but perhaps most significantly, Gordley’s conception of commutative justice is unable to account for central features of the law of obligations.

Teaching medical students about fair distribution of healthcare resources

Healthcare package decisions are complex. Different judgements about effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and disease burden influence the decision-making process. Moreover, different concepts of justice generate different ideas about fair distribution of healthcare...

Santo Tomás de Aquino: "Del gobierno de los príncipes"

In this article I intend to expose Thomas of Aquino’s main ideas written in his book De regimine principum (On princes’ regime) and to comment upon those related with the conteporary political philosophy. Among the ideas defended by Thomas of Aquino coming back to our culture, I appoint the following: the idea of Common Good, present in the communitaristic philosophy; the idea of Distributive Justice (John Rawls and Amartya Sen); and the idea of Just State, not only Legitimate one.

FROM BODO ETHICS TO DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

Concern with material equality as the central form of distributive justice is a very modern idea. Distributive justice for Aristotle and many other writers for millennia after him was a matter of distributing what each ought to get from merit or desert in some sense. Many, such as Hume, thought material equality a pernicious idea. In the medieval village life of Bodo, villagers knew enough about each other to govern relations through norms, including, when necessary, a norm of charity. In more complex modern societies, economic destitution cannot so well be handled by individual charity, but now it can be handled by states. Hence, we begin to conceive of the idea of distributive justice as driven essentially by concern for material equality. The difference in state capacities is largely epistemological: states today can know much more about their citizens.

Fairness in Taxation: Exploring the Principles

The papers in this volume explore the idea of distributive justice and fairness in taxation. The collection begins with Head's excellent presentation and analysis of equity in the public finance literature. The other authors, starting from this point, critique and amplify the concept from various philosophical perspectives and academic disciplines.

Contextualism, Pluralism, and Distributive Justice

THE INAPPLICABILITY THESISThere is a gap between the idea of distributive justice and the many factors that are morally relevant for decision making on economic issues. Only to a degree can this gap be attributed to the distance between “ideal reach” and “practical grasp,” to the legitimate difference in detail between an abstractly delineated economic scenario and a concrete set of circumstances, and to the disparate idioms and metaphors of theoretical and practical discourse. Rather, the gap indicates a fundamental problem with the concept of distributive justice. The problem, that is here termed the “inapplicability thesis,” is that even if distributive justice in abstract formulation were to be accepted as a value, its application in economic decision making is indeterminate.

Distributive Justice and the Criticism of International Law

Debate concerning international justice has shifted during this century from issues of legality to those of welfare. Underlying present controversies are differences regarding the character of international society and of political association itself. One division separates those who accept the premises of the states system from others who look forward to a cosmopolitan world society of individuals. And where some identify international justice with conduct according to common rules, others link it with social and economic equality or the achievement of minimum levels of welfare. The idea of distributive justice reflects the view that law and government should promote the latter ends. This raises the question (explored here using some ideas of Michael Oakeshott's) whether the pursuit of distributive justice is compatible with international relations in terms of common rules.

Principles of justice as a basis for conceptualizing a health care system.

This paper opens with a concern for the causes of the maldistribution of health care throughout most of the world. It then explores briefly the question of entitlement to health care, focusing on the appropriateness of expressing that entitlement in terms of social justice. Some principles of justice as related to health care are formulated, drawing on the thinking of John Rawls and his Theory of Justice, and the ideas of distributive justice that have been set forth by Nicholas Rescher. These principles are then used as a basis for planning a theoretical health care system in the setting of a less-developed country. This theoretical health care system is intended to reflect a just distribution of health care under conditions of varying limitations of resources, including those in which resources are not adequate to provide care for all of the people. Some of the technical, social, and political implications of such a system are discussed.