Principles of Distributive Justice

8/20/2019 Principles of Distributive Justice

1/9

Page | 1

Principles of Distributive Justice

As part of one of my current projects, I am trying to get an overview of all the different principles of distributivejustice. This post is simply an addition to my own personal notes on the topic. However, I share it here since it maybe of interest to some readers. I am working off this article.

The Distributive ProblemBefore looking at the different principles of distributive justice, it is necessary to understand why we need theseprinciples in the first place. As I understand it, the need stems from the basic cooperative bargains at the heart ofsocial intercourse. A cooperative bargain arises whenever there is some set of resources, services, opportunitiesetc.! that is only obtainable when people work together.

Take a simple e"ample. #uppose you and I really like chocolate cake. It would be great if we could each make ourown chocolate cakes for our personal consumption. However, this is not possible since we do not independentlyhave access to all the necessary ingredients$ I have access to the eggs and the flour, and you have access to thecocoa and the sugar. If we want the chocolate cake, we will have to work together.

A lot of social interactions have the same structure as this simple e"ample$ there is some gain to be made fromworking together that would not be made by working independently. And it is from these mutually%beneficialinteractions that the need for principles of distribution arises.

&onsider once more the chocolate cake. After we have made it, who is entitled to what proportion of the finishedproduct' #hould we each get half' (r should our share depend on the value of our original contribution' Is thecontribution of cocoa somehow more important than the contribution of flour' )rinciples of distribution shouldhelp us to answer these *uestions.

+ore generally, the principles of distribution should do two things$

• They must tell us what to do with the cooperative surplus. That is$ the surplus that motivates the bargain

in the first place must be shared among the parties to the bargain.• They must tell us what to do with the cooperative burden. That is$ no surplus will be realised without

some effort being e"pended by the parties to the bargain, so it is essential to know how much effort each party ise"pected to e"pend.

+ost discussions of distributive justice focus on surpluses instead of burdens. That makes a certain amount ofsense since there would really be no point in talking about distributive justice if there was no surplus to bedistributed. However, I think it is worth bearing in mind the e"istence of burdens as well.

ow we are in a position to look at the various principles of distributive justice. In each case I will describe theprinciple and look at some of its shortcomings.

1. Strict EgalitarianismThe first, and perhaps most obvious, principle of distribution is that of strict egalitarianism. This calls for allparties to get an e*ual share of the surplus and the burden!. In modern societies, this might mean e*ual rights,incomes, access to social services, and so on.

There are two major difficulties with strict egalitarianism and other theories of distributive justice that are basedon some preferred pattern of distribution$

• The Measurement (Index) Problem$ -e can only know that people are getting an e*ual share if there is

some way of measuring the value of the relevant surplus. -hile money may be a useful measure in some cases, itis likely to useless in other cases e.g. measuring the value of a legal right!. #imilarly, if people value resources indifferent ways over different time periods, it may always be in their interest to e"change their e"isting

entitlements with others.• The Time Frame Problem$ (ver what time period must the preferred pattern of distribution be achieved'

Is it just a starting point from which people are free to deviate' (r must it be sustained indefinitely'

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/


2/9

Page | 2

There are some specific moral criticisms of strict egalitarianism as well. &hief among them would be its tendencyto limit freedom, to be insensitive to what people deserve, to fail to achieve the best outcomes for all people andto fail to give best effect to the principle of e*ual respect. These criticisms will come up again and again.

2. The Difference PrincipleThis is associated with the work of ohn /awls. He argued that a general social distribution is just provided twoconditions are met$

• i! 0ach person has an e*ual claim to a fully ade*uate scheme of basic rights and liberties e.g. speech,

conscience, religion etc.!

• ii! Any social ine*ualities such as differences in income, are a! attached to positions and offices that are

open to all under conditions of e*ual opportunity, and b! are such that they 1raise the floor1 i.e. the position ofthe least well%off! as much as is possible.

&ondition ii!b! is the 2ifference )rinciple.

The primary criticisms of /awls are as follows$

• By concentrating on the absolute position of the least well%off, /awls is inattentive to the injustices arising

from the relative positions of the least well%off compared to the most well%off. If the upper echelons of a societyare significantly better off than the lower echelons, it may be possible for them to e"clude the less well%off fromall important public jobs and political offices. This would be an important injustice overlooked by /awls3s theory.

• It does not ma"imise outcomes utilitarian objection!.

• It involves unacceptable infringements on personal liberty$ people are constrained in what they can do

with their own resources libertarian objection!.

• It is not sensitive to people3s contributions to the social surplus contribution%sensitivity!, nor to their

natural endowments endowment%sensitivity!.

3. Resource-base PrinciplesThe third set of principles maintain that e*ual initial access to resources is the most just distribution. In practice,

this means that people are initially granted e*ual resources to do with as they please. According to 2workin3smetaphor, we are to imagine everyone is given e*ual purchasing power in a massive auction for all possible socialgoods. They can choose to spend as they see fit.

/esource%based theorists aim to be sensitive to peoples3 ambitions, contributions and endowments. 4or e"ample, if people suffer from some natural as opposed to developed! handicap or talent, this will need to be compensatedor rectified so that they can start from the same position as others.

5tilitarian and libertarian objections apply to this set of principles. Also, it is not clear how any actual accountingfor differences in natural talents or handicaps can be done. )articularly since the dividing line between what isnatural and what is developed is unclear.

!. "elfare-base Principles-elfare%based principles of distribution are utilitarian in form. They are focused on ma"imising the overall amountof some agreed%upon unit or units! of welfare. These could range from the subjective preferences of individualactors, to objective measures of welfare such as lifespan, access to education, healthcare, income etc.

-elfare%based principles do not focus on the actual pattern of distribution e.g. e*ual shares for everybody! but onthe net welfare%outcomes associated with patterns of distribution.

All the standard criticisms of utilitarianism apply. The main problems, especially when it comes to distributionalissues, are$

• It is insensitive to the differences between people$ if the goal is overall ma"imisation, then it is possible

that a massively une*ual society e.g. with one rich overlord and 66 starving servants! could be more 1just1 than a

society in which the welfare is spread around more evenly.

• )reference%ma"imisation can give e*ual weight to preferences that seem wrong e.g. the preferences of

racists, homophobes and misogynists.


3/9

Page | 3

• Because it cannot automatically rule out particular patterns of distribution, it would rely on highly

accurate empirical information about the aggregate of utility in society. (ften, such empirical data is absent orimpossible to obtain.

#. Desert-base Principles2esert%based principles try to ensure that distributions are sensitive to the effort or contributions that peoplemake to the social surplus. The idea is that some people deserve certain shares or outcomes because of theirprevious actions. #o distributions should be proportionate to contributions.

The main problems with desert%based principles are$

• The failure to find a good measure of contribution$ is it the economic output they produce' the costs they

incur' the 1effort1 they e"pend'

• (ftentimes, people3s ability to contribute is a function of pre%e"isting ine*ualities. 4or instance, those who

are better off can contribute more because they have more resources or they have a better education. #o adesert%based system may simply perpetuate injustices and ine*ualities.

•

$. %ibertarian PrinciplesThe classic o7ickian! libertarian position is that any distribution of resources is acceptable provided it conforms

with three principles of liberty$ legitimate ac*uisition, legitimate transfer and rectification.

According to the principle of legitimate ac*uisition, one naturally owns oneself and by pro"y one ac*uireslegitimate ownership over those previously unowned! features of the natural world with which one mi"es one3slabour. (nce one owns something, one is entitled to freely transfer it to another, whereby they legitimatelyac*uire what is transferred.

Any distribution of resources that is arrived at following legitimate ac*uisition or transfer is just. However, currentdistributions may be the product of previously illegitimate ac*uisitions and transfers. In those cases, somerectification is needed owned.

The major problems with libertarian principles are$

• The practical impossibility of rectification and the conse*uent potential to perpetuate historicalinjustices.

• The *uestionable theory of property ownership that accompanies it. +any would argue that property rights

are only possible within a legal and political framework and that this framework re*uires the cooperation ofothers. Thus, it is not true to say that you 1naturally1 ac*uire ownership simply by mi"ing your labour with thenatural world.

&. 'ritical Theories

There is a whole suite of theories %% feminist, postmodern, +ar"ist, race%based %% that criticise traditional theoriesof justice for their tendency to ignore, silence or suppress certain groups. I don3t think any of these theoriesadvance their own principles of justice, they simply tend to argue for e"pansion or abandonment of e"istingprinciples.

WIKIPEDIA

In social psychology, distributive justice is defined as perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are

shared by (distributed across) group members. [1] or e!ample, when wor"ers of the same job are paid

different salaries, group members may feel that distributive justice has not occurred.

#o determine whether distributive justice has ta"en place, individuals often turn to the distributive

norms of their group.[1] $norm is the standard of behaviour that is re%uired, desired, or designated as

normal within a particular group.[&] If rewards and costs are allocated according to the designated

distributive norms of the group, distributive justice has occurred. [']

Types of distributive norms[edit]

ive types of distributive norm are defined by orsyth[who?][1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-Forsyth-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-Forsyth-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(social)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-3https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distributive_justice&action=edit&section=1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-Forsyth-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-Forsyth-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-Forsyth-1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(social)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-3https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distributive_justice&action=edit&section=1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice#cite_note-Forsyth-1


4/9

Page | 4

1. Equity embers* outcomes should be based upon their inputs. #herefore, an individual who

has invested a large amount of input (e.g. time, money, energy) should receive more from the

group than someone who has contributed very little. embers of large groups prefer to base

allocations of rewards and costs on e%uity.

&. Equality +egardless of their inputs, all group members should be given an e%ual share of the

rewardscosts. -%uality supports that someone who contributes &/ of the group0s resources

should receive as much as someone who contributes /.'. Power #hose with more authority, status, or control over the group should receive more than

those in lower level positions.

2. Need #hose in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those

needs. #hese individuals should be given more resources than those who already possess

them, regardless of their input.

3. Responsibility 4roup members who have the most should share their resources with those

who have less.

In organizations[edit]

In the conte!t of organi5ational justice, distributive justice is conceptuali5ed as fairness associatedwith outcomes decisions and distribution of resources. #he outcomes or resources distributed may be

tangible (e.g., pay) as well as intangible (e.g., praise). 6erceptions of distributive justice can be

fostered when outcomes are perceived to be e%ually applied ($dams, 173).

Outcomes[edit]

8istributive justice effects performance when efficiency and productivity are involved (9ohen:9harash

; illiams, &7). $s organi5ational actions and decisions are perceived as more just,

employees are more li"ely to engage in ?9@s. 6erceptions of distributive justice are also strongly

related also to the withdrawal of employees from the organi5ation (9ohen:9harash ; hat unitesthem is the mutual interest in achieving the best possible results or, in terms of the e!ample above,

the best possible distribution of wealth.

In policy positions[edit]

8istributive justice theory argues that societies have a duty to individuals in need and that all

individuals have a duty to help others in need. 6roponents of distributive justice lin" it to human rights.

any governments are "nown for dealing with issues of distributive justice, especially countries with

ethnic tensions and geographically distinctive minorities. 6ost:apartheid


5/9

Page | 5

Essay on Economic Growth without Distributive Justice Is Bound To Breed iolence

Introduction:

Increasing production and thereby enhancing economic growth is a major priority for most developing

countries including India. But production alone is not sufficient. The fruits of production must be

distributed-in adjust and fair manner.

Development of Thought:

History is witness to the fact that all wars and revolutions the world over are linked to economic causes be

it the European war for colonies the !econd "orld "ar the #rench $evolution the %ar&ist revolution or

the more recent 'ulf war.

(loser home too )a&alism Trade *nion unrest (aste wars the tension in +unjab and the )orth-east the

growing crime rate in cities are-all linked to the lack of distributive justice and the fact of economic

deprivation.

Economic growth on its own does ensure prosperity and peace to a limited e&tent. But without a justdistribution conflicts are bound to arise sooner or later as one class of people feels e&ploit by the other.

Conclusion:

*nless proper steps are taken to ensure a proper and just distribution of the fruits economic progress there

is bound to be conflict and violence in society.

The most urgent task before the country immediately after independence was to increase economic

production and growth but even then )ehru was careful to insist that production by itself would not do.

,ddressing businessmen in elhi in /01 he had said 2istribution will not look after itself there is no

proper distribution no proper social justice there will be conflicts on an enormous scale.2Indeed the truth of the statement 2Economic 'rowth without istributive justice is bound to breed

violence2 has been borne out many times in history.

,ll wars and violent conflicts have had their roots in an economic cause whatever may have been the

outward act of provocation. If the European powers fought amongst themselves to carve out colonies in the

Third "orld in the earlier centuries it was because of the huge economic stakes in terms of the wealth of

the colonies that were involved.

In the //3s if the *!, and its allies went to war with Ira4 it was not just to uphold the values of liberty

and free 5uwait but because of the huge economic interests involved in the oil industry in the 'ulf.

"hile preserving the economic advantage one already possesses has been a major cause of war another

major cause has been the violence which results from economic deprivation a violence that arises from the

unjust distribution of wealth from having to live in sub-human conditions in ghettos and urban slums while

the fruits of economic growth and prosperity are appropriated by the few who have the power and means to

do so.

History is again a witness to the violence of the 6have-note6. The #rench $evolution which healed the value

of liberty e4uality and fraternity was a result of the economic deprivation that the #rench masses suffered

under an unjust feudal system.

"hile the monarchy and aristocracy appropriated the fruits of economic growth the poor peasants starved.

7ueen %arie ,ntoinette6s famous words 2If they do not have bread let them eat cakes2 are reflective of theeconomic injustice perpetrated on the masses which ultimately led to the violent revolution in which the

peasants overthrew the monarchy and aristocracy.


6/9

Page | 6

The seeds of "orld "ar II were also sown in the economic deprivation that 'ermany had to suffer after

"orld "ar I. The allied powers slapped stiff economic sanctions against 'ermany which had to shell out

huge amounts as war reparation. 'erman industry was prevented from e&panding. ,ll this ultimately led to

the rise of Hitler and militant 'erman nationalism in the form of )a8ism.

The $ussian revolution based on the ideals of %ar& was a revolution of the proletariat 9masses: against the

bourgeoisie 9classes: the 2have-nots2 against the 2haves2. %ar& traces the entire history of mankind as a

struggle between those who have economic power and those who don6t.

(loser home too; we have seen that mere economic growth is not enough. "hen distributive justice does

not accompany it it is bound to lead to social tensions which when magnified breeds violence. The )a&alite

movement is a case in point.

The violence perpetrated by )a&alite arise from their desire to gain justice a distributive justice that they

have been deprived of by the rich landlords and 8amindars who hold the peasants virtually as bonded labour

and point their services to earn phenomenal profits.

The same is true of trade union violence in the industrial sector. The factory worker finds himself

inade4uately compensated for his bourn and having to work often in unsafe and unhygienic conditions

while the profits which the worker has helped earn lines the pockets I of the industrialists.

%any political problems in a also have their roots in the lack of distributive justice. The terrorist problem in

+unjab was often attributed to the large scale unemployment among educated youth who were lured to take

up arms.

!imilarly the continuing tensions and movements of secessions and insurgency in the )orth- East can be

traced to the lack of economic particularly industrial development in these states.

The )orth-Eastern states feel that they are being given a step- mother treatment by the (entre which does

not sanction enough funds for economic development in these regions.

!imilarly the rising crime rates and incidence of violent riots in the metropolitan cities like %umbai are

symptomatic of the deeper problems arising from 6'rowth without distributive justice6 #orced to live out

their lives in my hovels in slums which stand check by jowl with lu&urious high rise apartments the

masses are bound to feel a sense of resentment at the injustice. This builds up a simmering discontent which

ultimately breaks out in violent demonstrations at some slight provocation.

Even the 4uestion of caste wars in India is ultimately a 4uestion of distributive justice. It is the more

powerful castes who enjoy greater economic power and benefits and it is they who corner the most lucrative

jobs and other economic benefits arising out of development.

"hen the lower castes thus begin to realise that it is economic freedom which can increase their status in

society they are bound to fight for their rights and when forcibly deprived of their rights it could lead to

violence.

The whole controversy over the %andals issue was also linked to the 4uestion of economic security of jobs

which the forward castes thought they would be losing out on because of the reservation for the Backward

(lasses.

The 'overnment however was right in this case as it was merely correcting an injustice which had been

perpetrated on the Backward (lasses for centuries.

The founding fathers in their wisdom foresaw the disastrous conse4uences that growth without social

justice could cause and hence ensured reservations in education and jobs for the !cheduled (astes and

!cheduled Tribes who had for centuries been deprived of basic human rights and had been prevented from

economic progress.

Had not this right been given constitutionally there would definitely have been a violent upheaval as

awareness among the depressed classes increased.


7/9

Page | 7

It is true that when there is economic progress in general to a certain e&tent the standard of living of every

person will go up. !imilarly if there is economic growth there will be more jobs and if there are enough

jobs; there is no cause for conflict. But human society as it has developed tends to be e&ploitative.

There will always be sections of people who will benefit more than others from economic development. If

left to natural market forces of distribution there is bound to be some injustice.

Even capitalist countries recogni8e this act and hence have moved from the concept of pure laisse8-faire to

the concept of welfare states where the government does provide social security nets for the less privileged

sections of society such as the aged the sick and the unemployed.

"ay back it was the late


8/9

Page | 8


9/9

Page | 9

Principles of Distributive Justice

Documents

Transcript of Principles of Distributive Justice