Distributive Justice

This article takes an in-depth look at some of the theoretical approaches to distributive justice. The article analyzes the ideals of three general frameworks - that which requires egalitarian distribution, that which encourages individual initiative and that which focuses on the equitable distribution of resources.

Keywords Difference Principle; Distributive Justice; Egalitarianism; Endowments; Liberalism; Resource Egalitarianism; Utilitarianism

Distributive Justice

Overview

Nearly 1,000 years before the birth of Christ, an ancient ruler became an example of equal distribution for people to follow for millennia to come. King Solomon, according to tradition, was a man of great judgment and wisdom, famous for an incident in which two women came to his court, each claiming to be the mother of a newborn. When he ruled that the child be split in two so that the two women could each claim ownership, one woman accepted his outrageous decision, while the other offered to give the child to the first woman in order to save its life. Solomon knew at that moment the identity of the child's mother and gave it back to the second woman. Justice was served.

Ironically, the man who is arguably one of history's greatest issuers of egalitarian justice would ultimately become the subject of wealth redistribution on an equal plain. During the course of his life, Solomon had accumulated vast amounts of wealth. When he died, his son, Rehoboam, took the throne but not his father's riches - those vast sums, along with the rest of the kingdom, were divided equally among the two competing Hebrew states (Schoenberg, 2008).

Throughout history, people in every society have consistently sought to acquire the maximum benefits available to them. Then again, no society has been able to find a balance between those who are able to obtain large sums of wealth and those who have fallen into poverty. At the center of what is known as "distributive justice" is a theoretical quest to bridge the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" in a given society.

The distribution of wealth in the United States, one of the world's wealthiest nations, paints an interesting example of the inequity that drives advocates of this philosophical ideal. In 2007, the top one percent of earners in the United States owned 34.6 percent of all privately held wealth. The following 19 percent, comprised of managers, professionals and small business operators owned about 51 percent. The remaining 80 percent of households, comprised of lower-income workers, owned 16 percent of the wealth in the country. With such inequities, debate over how wealth should be distributed (versus how it currently is distributed) continues within the philosophical circle of distributive justice. This concept states that resources should be allocated according to an established moral or ethical code that is reflective of social norms but still represents a departure from the forces that created such inequity.

This paper takes an in-depth look at some of the theoretical approaches to distributive justice, analyzing the ideals of three general frameworks - that which requires egalitarian distribution, that which encourages individual initiative and that which focuses on the equitable distribution of resources.

Strict Egalitarianism

There is a common perception that the terms "equality" and "egalitarianism" are interchangeable. However, whereas the former term refers to a situation in which differences between strata are bridged, the latter refers to the pursuit of equality and even elimination of those different strata (Marina, 1975).

It is this latter concept that lends to the notion of "strict egalitarianism," a term that applies to a socio-political rule or law mandating that all strata of a society must be equal to one another. Within a strict egalitarian conceptual framework, all individuals are endowed with freedoms and rights, ideals which are the same for each person. However, current systems, while allowing for equality (each socio-economic stratum enjoying such liberties while distinct from one another), do not seek to eliminate the different strata and therefore guarantee all individuals the same benefits and social standing. Strict egalitarianism requires that all social strata are equalized - that the disadvantaged are raised in the social order, and that the wealthier classes are lowered to one common, uniform level.

Of course, the central element of strict egalitarianism is the redistribution of resources in order to create equity among social groups. Such a formula requires that there be no affluence or poverty; resources are redistributed in such a way that each individual within the society receives an equal share. Interestingly, the strict egalitarian method could also lead to a situation in which everyone, from the wealthiest to the most indigent, might receive less than they might if inequities were allowed (Legal Theory Lexicon, 2005).

Shortcomings of Strict Egalitarianism

Considered one of the more simple theoretical models of the normative field of distributive justice, strict egalitarianism's most significant shortcoming is the fact that its application may be too simple and unclear. After all, egalitarianism proceeds from the notion that there are shortages in the endowments available to all individuals, and that this inequality must be corrected. However, the ideal of strict egalitarianism does not look at the causes of these deficiencies and inequalities (Raz, 1986).

A clarification of this issue with strict egalitarianism is offered in a 2002 study of international relations. The problem with this concept, the authors write, is that there will be many allocations of resources, good and services that will inevitably help some but not others. In fact, the distribution of these resources may not be uniform, which means that some will gain more than others, and some may lose in order that others gain. The result, the authors argue, will be that making identical bundles of resources, goods and services will inevitably make people materially worse off than they would be under another framework (Griffiths and O'Callaghan, 2002).

There have been many challenges and criticisms to the strict egalitarian model. In addition to the issues that exist with the pursuit of some sort of socio-economic equilibrium, many scholars and observers believe that the nature of such equalization violates the freedoms and rights that individuals should enjoy in a democratic system. The relative rigidity and incompleteness of the strict egalitarian model have given rise to alternatives. It is to some of these alternatives that this paper next turns.

John Rawls & the Difference Principle

In 1971, political philosopher John Rawls offered his liberal-leaning views on the morally agreeable manner by which goods and assets are distributed in society. His seminal work, "A Theory of Justice," introduced a theoretical ideal of how to correct the imbalance between the wealthy and the poor.

Central to Rawls's theory is the "Difference Principle." The ideal behind Rawls's theory is that inequities in a society are allowable, but they are permissible only if the imbalance works in the favor of the disadvantaged. In essence, his view was that while all individuals have far-reaching, equal rights and freedoms, there should be limits to those liberties based on the social and economic conditions of people with the least social, political and economic advantages. Rawls's believed that if this concept of egalitarianism was applied, there would be no inequities in a society; those with traditionally higher paying jobs would still perform their duties but would not be at an economic advantage over the rest of society (Distributive Justice Project, 2008).

The Difference Principle allows for inequality based on the cause of that inequality's affect on the society as a whole. An institution that creates advantages for some and disadvantages for others is admissible if its overall impact on society is positive.

Rawls's Influence

Rawls's work became iconic among left-leaning scholars and activists. Liberal scholar and philosopher Stuart Hampshire called "A Theory of Justice" the most important work of moral philosophy since the end of World War II (Gordon, 2008). A 1999 survey of American teachers of philosophy concurred with Hampshire's view. Respondents were asked for their views of the best works of philosophy of the 20th century. The survey did not ask the individuals whether or not they agreed with the philosophers' points of view, but rather inquired as to how often they were cited. In a list of 25 names, John Rawls's "Theory" was the third-most invoked work by respondents, with 131 citing that work in their own studies. "Theory" only fell behind Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" (179 citations) and Martin Heidegger's "Being and Time" (134 citations). The fact that Rawls's work was so heavily cited is indicative of its strength among philosophical scholars. The survey's respondents noted that "Theory" "is the preeminent work of ethics from the last half of the 20th century" (Lackey, 1999).

At the very least, "A Theory of Justice" helped provide a sort of moral compass for some political scientists and leaders trying to address the issues facing society. Rawls's work has helped them to limit the causes of disparity by building economic and political regulations, bureaucratic review processes and other procedures into public administration institutions.

An example of Rawls's influence on political leaders is that of former Premier of the Canadian province of Ontario, Bob Rae. During his five-year tenure as the leader of Canada's largest province, Rae proceeded from the perspective that the more able members of society owed a debt to less able citizens (a tenet of redistribution introduced by Karl Marx and invoked by John Rawls). In fact, at the end of Rae's administration, Ontario was saddled with record debt, a deficit that would be repaid by higher taxation on wealthy citizens and business and not the poor (Valentine, 2002).

Controversy Surrounding the Difference Principle

The view offered by Rawls generated a considerable amount of controversy from a number of arenas. Some agreed with the ideals the Difference Principle introduced, but took offense to the type of society Rawls's model constructed. Rawls's concept, for example, called for a type of political liberalism that is created from a set of commonly agreed-upon moral ideals from each mainstream school of thought. However, Rawls eschewed many of the principles of organized religions. In his quest for a "comprehensive" liberalism, Rawls disagreed with the tenets of the Catholic church, preferring a secular form of morality over those espoused by religious organizations (George, 2006).

The Catholic church is not alone in taking to task Rawls's notion that individual moral beliefs would effectively gravitate toward aiding a society's less fortunate citizens. One scholar points to the problem of congruence, a condition on which Rawls's theory rests. Rawls assumes that, under a well-ordered, stable society, a set of moral attitudes arise which in turn are used to strive toward the framework of justice. However, akin to the doubts raised by the Catholic church above, converging the multitude of individual attitudes to create a moral center, is in practical terms a daunting challenge. The author writes:

"How can we ensure an adequate degree of motivation, on the pan of individuals with particularistic, perfectionist and prudential interests, to comply with the sometimes-contra-personal demands of the impartial point of view that is characteristic of moral reasoning?" (D'Agostino, 2001).

In truth, the Rawls idea of a society that will not only collectively establish a moral and ethical code of responsibility to help the disadvantaged members of society, but will in a comprehensive manner work in unison to correct the imbalances of that society as well, seems to create more questions than answers. It is perhaps because of this challenge in applying Rawls's theory to a practical environment that his influence is largely considered intellectual. In fact, his works are considered valuable, for the most part, in helping others fashion more practicable alternatives (Nagel, 1999). It is to some of these alternatives that this paper will next turn attention.

Promoting Equality without Forcing the Issue

In addressing the inequities of society, strict egalitarianism and the Difference Principle, while intellectually stimulating, appear to fall short in fostering actual "de-stratification." The controversy both ideals have generated stems from a "requirement" that individuals forgo their own personal pursuits in order to help the less-fortunate. Libertarians, for example, see such mandates as infringements on an individual's guaranteed rights. Even the Difference Principle, a somewhat "watered-down" version of egalitarianism, calls for a social code that critics argue is arbitrary and exclusionary of many established philosophical and religious codes.

The general issue critics present regarding strict egalitarianism and the Difference Principle is that individual liberty and responsibility is to a large degree dictated. Subsequent alternatives to such theories and philosophical ideals, therefore, divert the focus away from the responsibility of wealthier individuals to help those who are less fortunate.

Resource Egalitarianism

As opposed to the elimination of social strata and inequity sought by normative adherents to strict egalitarianism and the Difference Principle, within a framework of "resource egalitarianism," there is no patterned outcome expected. Rather, the outcome is created by the actions of individuals (Stanford Universty, 2007).

Under resource egalitarianism, two comments are made about society and its potential opportunities. First, the notion suggests that, if the same resources are available for all levels of society, people should be allowed to follow their own ambitions and rewarded (via higher income) for the hard work they dedicate towards advancement.

The second assumption is that there are a number of different reasons why individuals find themselves on varying strata. For some, their eligibility for certain "endowments" (which, for the purposes of this paper, refers to the circumstances in which people make decisions about their future and pursue their own goals) is hampered by their own choices. Only those with intellectual or physical handicaps may find themselves at a disadvantage that is beyond their control - this latter group is therefore eligible for certain "endowments" within a system. Nevertheless, the conclusion of resource-based egalitarians is that the focal point should be the resources available, not the actions of other citizens.

One of the most prominent advocates of this approach to distributive justice was political scientist Ronald Dworkin. In the mid-1980s, he argued that people's fates should depend on their personal choices, not endowments. Of course, there are circumstances in which individual conditions are not the result of personal choice -- such as a physical handicap, illness or even race and gender - that may keep a person from achieving equality within the system. Dworkin therefore argued that government should adopt laws, policies and regulations that ensure that people's fate is insensitive to economic background, gender, race, skill level and handicaps (Pierik, 2006).

Conclusion

John Rawls once said, "The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one, analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice" (Liberty-Tree.ca, 2005). Such a statement may be reflective of the perceived failure of modern society to address gross socio-economic inequities.

Such inequality, particularly as evidenced by large disparities between the wealthiest and poorest members of society (such as is the case in the United States), has led many political philosophers to embrace distributive justice and the alternative theories and ideals therein that look to "level the playing field." As this paper has shown, the philosophical approaches to distributive justice may be ordered into three distinct areas.

The first of these approaches is also the most basic, at least in terms of the simplicity by which it is crafted. Strict egalitarianism is indeed a dramatic concept - eliminating all inequality by redistributing existing resources. Of course, this, the most basic of the distributive justice theories is the most controversial. By removing individual choices and freedoms, as well as the endowments for which people work, it is understandable that establishment of a system that redistributes resources equally regardless of individual merit would generate such criticism.

The Difference Principle advocated by John Rawls offers a somewhat less indigestible ideal for critics. Whereas strict egalitarianism pursues a society without inequalities, Rawls suggested that inequalities are acceptable as long as such imbalances favor the disadvantaged. Then again, Rawls's theories were met with controversy as well, particularly by those who still see infringements on individual rights and freedom created by the Difference Principle. Furthermore, Rawls takes a bold step (one not conducted in strict egalitarian models) toward looking to build a moral and ethical code that allows for an egalitarian society. Such an approach leaves itself open for debate, as the establishment of such codes often disregards existing moral and ethical ideals.

External to the individual-based approach to egalitarianism is the view that the resources, not citizens, should be the focal point of such an approach. By availing resources to individuals of all economic strata, adherents to the theory purport, individuals retain their ability to choose their own destiny by selecting from the very same pool of endowments.

One cannot discount the passions inflamed by stories of gross disparities between the wealthy and the poor. It is such disparity that prompted left-leaning philosophers and political scientists to advocate for an egalitarian approach to bridging gaps. It is therefore appreciable that political leaders would incorporate many of these political philosophical ideals into their governance, as the former Premier of Ontario did so prominently in the 1990s. Egalitarian and resource-based approaches remain largely theoretical at this time, but there is no doubt that a growing population of scholars seeks to have such ideals injected into the practical world in one form or another.

Terms & Concepts

Difference Principle: Philosophical theory which suggests that social inequities should only exist if they serve the disadvantaged.

Distributive Justice: Ideal which states that resources should be allocated according to a moral or ethical code.

Egalitarianism: The pursuit of equality and even elimination of different socio-economic strata.

Endowments: The circumstances in which people make decisions about their future and pursue their own goals

Liberalism: Political and philosophical school of thought that encourages social change through political and legal reform.

Resource Egalitarianism: Political philosophical ideal by which social equity is achieved through equal access to resources and services.

Utilitarianism: 18th century philosophical ideal espoused by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that states that inequalities may exist within a society as long as the net impact is positive.

Bibliography

Burleigh, T., & Meegan, D. (2013). Keeping Up with the Joneses Affects Perceptions of Distributive Justice. Social Justice Research, 26, 120-131. doi:10.1007/s11211-013-0181-3 Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87661086&site=ehost-live

D'Agostino, F. (2001). Rituals of impartiality. Social Theory and Practice, 27 , 65-81. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4350749&site=ehost-live

Distributive justice. (2007, March 5). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/

Distributive justice introduction. (2005, July 10). Legal Theory Lexicon. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from http://legaltheorylexicon.blogspot.com/2005/07/legal-theory-lexicon-049-distributive.html

Domhoff, G. W. (2006, December). Wealth, income and power. Who Rules America? Retrieved September 9, 2008, from http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html.

George, R. P. (2006). Public morality, public reason. First Things, , 21-26. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22765287&site=ehost-live

Gordon, D. (2008). Going off the Rawls. American Conservative, 7 , 24-27. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33282105&site=ehost-live

Griffiths, M. and O'Callaghan, T. (2002). International relations: The key concepts. New York: Routledge. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://books.google.com/books?id=rfx2TwyI_1kC&printsec=frontcover

John Rawls. (2008). Distributive Justice Project. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from http://www.distributive-justice.com/mainpage_frame-e.htm.

Kilcullen, R. J. (1996). Rawls: the original position. Modern Political Theory: Reading Guide. Macquarie University. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l13.html.

Lackey, D. P. (1999). What are the modern classics? Philosophical Forum, 30 , 329-347. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4371125&site=ehost-live

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton-Bellessa, S. M. (2011). The Association Between Perceptions of Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice With Support of Treatment and Support of Punishment Among Correctional Staff. Journal Of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 202-220. doi:10.1080/10509674.2011.552586 Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60734407&site=ehost-live

Lucas, T., Zhdanova, L., Wendorf, C., & Alexander, S. (2013). Procedural and Distributive Justice Beliefs for Self and Others: Multilevel Associations with Life Satisfaction and Self-Rated Health. Journal Of Happiness Studies, 14, 1325-1341. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9387-6 Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90051510&site=ehost-live

Marina, W. (1975, January 1). Egalitarianism and empire. The Independent Institute. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1410.

Meng, T. (2012). Chinese People's Perception of Distributive Justice in Transitional China: Outcome Justice and Opportunity Justice. (English). Society: Chinese Journal Of Sociology / Shehui, 32, 108-134. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83695990&site=ehost-live

Nagel, T. (1999). Justice, justice, shalt thou pursue. New Republic, 221 , 36-41. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2362020&site=ehost-live

Pierik, R. (2006). Reparations for luck egalitarians. Journal of Social Philosophy, 37 , 423-440. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22226896&site=ehost-live

Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from http://books.google.com/books?id=XtTii12WFn0C

Schoenberg, S. (2008). Solomon. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved September 5, 2008, from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Solomon.html.

Valentine, H. (2002). John Rawls's influence on Canadian governance. Le Quebecois Libre, 115 . Retrieved September 6, 2008, from http://www.quebecoislibre.org/021207-7.htm

Suggested Reading

Baynes, K. (2006). Ethos and institution. Journal of Social Philosophy, 37 , 182-196. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20889056&site=ehost-live

Caney, S. (2008). Global distributive justice and the state. Political Studies, 56 , 487-518. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=34168759&site=ehost-live

Lister, A. (2013). Reciprocity, Relationships, and Distributive Justice. Social Theory & Practice, 39, 70-94. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract20133919 Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85628683&site=ehost-live

Nelson, E. (2008). From primary goods to capabilities. Political Theory, 36 , 93-122. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=28810045&site=ehost-live

Perugini, C. & Martino, G. (2008). Income inequality within European regions. Review of Income and Wealth, 54 , 373-406. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=33461386&site=bsi-live

Van Niekerk, A. A. (2004). Principles of global distributive justice. South African Journal of Philosophy, 23 , 171-194. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13908793&site=ehost-live

Wei, X. (2008). From principle to context. Rethinking Marxism, 20 , 472-486. Retrieved September 9, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=32744246&site=ehost-live