The Notion of Fair Distribution
Distributive justice is concerned with the fair allocation of resources among diverse members of a community. Fair allocation typically takes into account the total amount of goods to be distributed, the distributing procedure, and the pattern of distribution that results.
Because societies have a limited amount of wealth and resources, a question arises as to how those benefits ought to be distributed. The common answer is that public assets should be distributed in a reasonable manner so that each individual receives a "fair share." But this leaves open the question of what constitutes a "fair share."
Various principles might determine of how goods are distributed. Equality, Equity, and Need are among the most common criteria.[1] If equality is regarded as the ultimate criterion determining who gets what, goods will be distributed equally among all persons. (In other words each person will get the same amount.) However, due to differences in levels of need, this will not result in an equal outcome. (For example, every incoming freshman to a local college with a grade point above 3.0 might be offered a $500 scholarship. This is a nice reward for students and parents who can afford the remaining tuition, but is of no help to families that cannot afford the additional $6000/year fee to attend the school.)
Another possibility is to proceed according to a principle of equity, and distribute benefits in proportion to the individuals' contribution. Thus, those who make a greater productive contribution to their group deserve to receive more benefits. (Thus, in theory, people who work harder in more valuable jobs should earn more money.) This sort of distribution is typically associated with an economic system where there is equal opportunity to compete. In competitive systems, wealth or goods might also be distributed according to effort or ability.
Or, we might distribute goods according to need, so that an equal outcome results. Those who need more of a benefit or resource will receive more, as occurs when colleges offer needs-based scholarships.
Some suggest a system of competition that includes safety nets for those who cannot compete. This sort of system combines the principle of equity with that of need. It attempts to reward people for their productivity at the same time that it ensures their basic needs are met.
Finally, we might distribute resources according to social utility, or what is in the best interests of society as a whole.
The Significance of Distribution Procedures and Outcomes
Deborah Kolb talks about the impact of gender bias on a company's compensation scheme.
|
Different sorts of distributions advance different social goals. For a society to function effectively, it must keep its membership, engage in efficient and effective production, and sustain the well-being of its members.[2] The principles of distributive justice arise out of these concerns. Equal distribution is thought to give people a sense of full-fledged membership. Equity fosters the motivation to produce, to be rewarded for one's productivity. Lastly, distribution according to need ensures that everyone's basic and essential needs are met.
Because these principles are often in tension with one another, one of them is typically regarded as the central criterion of distribution. Depending on which principle is adopted, an economic system characterized by equality, competition, or social welfare safety nets will arise.
Some believe that what makes a distribution just is the final outcome, while others believe that what matters are the rules followed in determining that distribution. Even in those cases where the outcome is a fair distribution of resources, the procedures used to arrive at that distribution might be unjust. Conversely, a fair procedure might result in an unfair distribution.
In his Theory of Justice, John Rawls claims that one's place of birth, social status, and family influences are matters of luck that should not unduly influence the amount of benefits we receive in life. He maintains that the job of distributive justice is to limit the influence of luck so that goods might be distributed more fairly and to everyone's advantage.
Robert Nozick, on the other hand, believes that distributive justice is a matter of setting down rules that individuals should follow in acquiring and transferring resources and benefits. The aim of distributive justice is not to achieve any particular outcome of distribution, but rather to ensure a fair process of exchange.
Others think that distributive justice must be a matter of both process and outcome.
They believe that the processes of distribution must be fair in order for people to feel that they have received a fair outcome. Insofar as it is linked to the notion of fair processes, distributive justice has ties to concerns about procedural justice.
In some cases, the thing to be distributed is not a benefit, but a burden. For example, one might be concerned with the fairness of allocation of punishments, which is connected to retributive justice.
Why Distributive Justice Matters
According to the theory of relative deprivation, a sense of injustice is aroused when individuals come to believe that their outcome is not in balance with the outcomes received by people like them in similar situations.[3] When people have a sense that they are at an unfair disadvantage relative to others, or that they have not received their fair share, they may wish to challenge the system that has given rise to this state of affairs. This is especially likely to happen if a person or groups' fundamental needs are not being met, or if there are large discrepancies between the "haves" and the "have-nots." (See Rich/Poor Conflicts)
While it is clear that skin color or religion should not be valid criteria of distribution, real-life experience suggests that such factors often turn out to be quite significant. In the United States, as elsewhere, issues of distributive justice are connected to concerns about systemic poverty and racism, and questions about the fairness of affirmative action -- policies that grant preferential treatment to particular racial or gender groups.
Societies in which resources are distributed unfairly can become quite prone to social unrest. For example, "since the colonial period, unfair land distribution and the prevailing agricultural economic system have been the prime causes of armed and civil resistance in Guatemala ."[4] While national and international elites enjoy largely unrestricted access to communal lands expropriated from the Maya, the majority of Guatemalans live in poverty, on farms smaller than those required to feed the average family. This sort of land distribution violates principles of equality, equity, and need, and therefore generates conflict.
Redistribution of benefits, on the other hand, can sometimes help to relieve tensions and allow for a more stable society. Such redistribution can be an important component of social structural changes to remedy injustice.
Balancing out gross inequalities of wealth might also be part of compensatory justice after periods of war. During periods of postwar adjustment and peacebuilding efforts, long-term economic policy must aim to achieve equity, or balance in the distribution of income and wealth. Issues of distributive justice are in this way central to any peacebuilding or reconstruction program. Such efforts to ensure a just distribution of benefits following conflict are typically accompanied by democratization efforts to ensure a more balanced distribution of power as well.
[1] Robert T. Buttram, Robert Folger, and B.H. Sheppard, "Equity, Equality and Need: Three Faces of Social Justice," In Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch, eds. B.B. Bunker and Morton Deutsch (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, 1995), 261.
[2] Buttram, Robert T., Robert Folger, and B.H. Sheppard, 263.
[3] Morton Deutsch,. "Justice and Conflict." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, ed. M. Deutsch and P.T. Coleman (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, 2000), 43.
[4] Murga, Gustavo Palma. "Promised the Earth: Agrarian Reform in the Guatemalan Socio-Economic Agreement"
Use the following to cite this article:
Maiese, Michelle. "Distributive Justice." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/distributive_justice/>.
Sources of Additional, In-depth Information on this Topic
Additional Explanations of the Underlying Concepts:
Online (Web) Sources
Wein, Sheldon. A Humean Theory of Distributive Justice for a New Century.
Available at: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliWein.htm.
This paper suggests that blending David Hume's insights about the origins and purposes of justice with Ronald Dworkin's equality of resources model could allow us to construct a contemporary Humean theory of distributive justice. The new theory could ground an entrepreneurial welfare state that both encourages individuals to engage in entrepreneurial activities and protects them from the worst extremes of market economies.
Rubenstein, Richard E. "Conflict Resolution and Distributive Justice: Reflections on the Burton-Laue Debate." , November 1999
Available at: http://www.gmu.edu/academic/pcs/Rubenstein61PCS.html.
It seems worthwhile to recall a series of respectful but contentious "conversations" on conflict resolution between two important early leaders in the field of conflict studies: John W. Burton and James H. Laue. This piece describes their exchange of views in some detail before commenting on its implications for conceptions of social justice.
Lamont, Julian. Distributive Justice.
Available at: Click here for more info.
Principles of distributive justice are normative principles designed to allocate goods in limited supply relative to demand. Such principles can be strictly egalitarian or libertarian, as well as desert-based or welfare-based. This web page outlines the central components of various models of distributive justice.
Offline (Print) Sources
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Harvard University Press, September 1999.
Rawls famous theory of the social contract provides an account of the basic rights and liberties of citizens as free and equal persons. He believes that we derive the two central principles of justice, principles on which all rational people could agree, from behind a veil of ignorance. Rawls aims to express a central part of the democratic tradition, justice as fairness, and to provide an alternative to the utilitarian tradition of political thought.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, October 1977.
This book challenges the political and social positions commonly held by liberals, socialists, and conservatives of our age. Nozick defends the minimal state and sets forth an entitlement theory of economic justice in contrast to John Rawls contractual theory.
Cook, Karen S. and Karen A. Hegtvedt. "Distributive Justice, Equity, and Equality." Annual Review of Sociology 9, 1983.
"This chapter provides a general review of the research conducted over the past two decades on individuals' conceptions of equity and distributive justice and their reactions to inequity." -abstract Click here for more info.
Rescher, Nicholas. Distributive Justice: A Constructive Critique of the Utilitarian Theory of Distribution. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, October 1982.
This book explores the canons of distributive justice, utilitarian approaches to distribution, and special problems associated with scarcity, abundance, and inequality.
Deutsch, Morton. Distributive Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, April 1985.
Miller, David. "Distributive Justice: What the People Think." Ethics 102:3, 1995.
This article attempts to integrate political theory on distributive justice with empirical work on people's beliefs about distributive justice and the expression of those beliefs in practice. It looks at what people believe to be a fair allocation of valuable resources such as income and marks of prestige. Click here for more info.
Beitz, Charles R. "Economic Rights and Distributive Justice in Developing Societies." World Politics 33:3, 1981.
This essay explores the topic of distributive justice and more specifically, it addresses the question: what is the distributive share to which everyone is entitled. Click here for more info.
Buttram, Robert T., Robert Folger and Blair H. Sheppard. "Equity, Equality, and Need: The Three Faces of Social Justice." In Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch. Edited by Deutsch, Morton, Jeffrey Z. Rubin and Barbara Benedict Bunker, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, May 1995.
The authors suggest that the distributive justice principles of equity, equality, and need each advance distinct social goals. They examine these principles from the perspective of societies, individuals, and interpersonal relations, and argue that personal identity and interpersonal relations serve as the underpinnings of justice notions operating at the level of organizations or societies. Parallel foundations for procedural justice are discussed.
Deutsch, Morton. "Justice and Conflict." In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Edited by Coleman, Peter T. and Morton Deutsch, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
This chapter examines justice and conflict. It looks at distributive, procedural, retributive and reparative justice, the sense and scope of justice, and the implications injustice has on the course of conflict.
Tyler, Tom R. and R. J. Boeckmann. Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, May 1998.
This text focuses on the social psychology of justice. The authors look at how justice is defined, how to influence individuals' thoughts and actions and shapes their behavior, and when and why it matters. The underlying unifying theme is that individuals do care about issues of fairness in their interactions with others, with groups, and with institutions they support or oppose. Using this theme as their guidepost, the authors explore research on relative deprivation, distributive justice, procedural justice, and retributive justice.
Tyler, Tom R. and Maura A Belliveau. "Tradeoffs in Justice Principles: Definitions of Fairness." Conflict, Cooperation and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch , May 1995.
The authors discuss Morton Deutsch's suggestion that parties' goals shape the importance accorded to different principles of justice. Rather than a social justice model based on a single principle of justice, we need one that focuses on the relationship among different interaction goals and different principles of justice. The authors look at the relationship between equity and equality principles, and between distributive and procedural justice principles.
Return to Top
Examples Illustrating this Topic:
Online (Web) Sources
Hill, Ronald Paul, Kanwalroop Kathya Dhand and Robert M. Peterson. "Global Consumption and Distributive Justice: A Rawlsian Perspective." Human Rights Quarterly , 2001
Available at: Click here for more info.
Abstract: This investigation examines consumption inequities on a global basis from the ethical perspective advanced by the philosopher John Rawls. The first three Sections of the article describe the Rawlsian approach to distributive justice in detail, with a special emphasis on its application to primary goods and services. It goes on to discuss the extent to which Rawlsian justice exists globally and closes with a discussion of future prospects for world justice.
Murga, Gustavo Palma. "Promised the Earth: Agrarian Reform in the Guatemalan Socio-Economic Agreement." , 1997
Available at: http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/guatemala/promised-earth.php.
Scroll most of the way down the page to this article. It examines economic justice in Guatemala, and focuses on land distribution and how it has impacted indigenous populations and agriculturalists. It also examines the effectiveness and long-term potentials associated with Guatemala's recent socio-economic reforms.
Offline (Print) Sources
Daniels, Norman. "Health-Care Needs and Distributive Justice." Philosophy and Public Affairs 10:2, 1981.
Daniels discusses health care as a special type of social good and sets forth a theory of health care needs. Having these needs met is central to normal human functioning, and helps to determine an individual's range of opportunities. Health care is therefore the sort of social good that must be subsumed under principles of distributive justice. Click here for more info.
McCandless, Erin. "Reconciling Relationships While Pursuing Justice: The Case of Land Redistribution in Zimbabwe." Peace And Change 25:2, April 1, 2000.
The author explores how land redistribution in Zimbabwe has helped to establish constructive intercommunal relationships and build a sustainable peace. This case reveals the critical role that social and economic relationships and structures can play in peacebuilding and reconciliation.
Return to Top
|
