Principles of Distributive Justice

Lissowski, Grzegorz; Tyszka, Tadeusz; Okrasa, Włodzimierz

doi:10.1177/0022002791035001006

Cited by 54 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A hypothetical participant in our study could have been judging the distributive fairness of these AAPs by evaluating them in accordance with any of these rules, as well as some combination of more than one (cf. Lissowski, Tyszka, & Okrasa, 1991). At the present time, it is not clear which allocation rules are operable when individuals rate AA policies, nor is it understood how evaluations of AAPs might change depending on which allocation is salient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Justice and Black Applicants' Reactions to Affirmative Action.

Cropanzano¹,

Slaughter²,

Bachiochi³

2005

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using organizational justice as a guiding framework, the authors studied perceptions of affirmative action programs by presumed beneficiaries. Three conceptual issues were addressed: (a) the content of different affirmative action plans; (b) the 3-way interaction among distributive, procedural, and interactional justice; and (c) the distinction between outcome favorability and distributive justice. These ideas were tested with a sample of Black engineering students who responded to 1 of 6 plans. Participants distinguished among the various plans, with some policies being viewed as more fair than others. In addition, a 3-way interaction among the 3 types of organizational justice was observed. Specifically, the 2-way interaction between distributive and interactional fairness was only significant when procedural justice was low. Implications for organizational justice and for the design of affirmative action programs are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Justice and Black Applicants' Reactions to Affirmative Action.

Cropanzano¹,

Slaughter²,

Bachiochi³

2005

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A significant number of players adhere to the rule they voluntarily chose; and the chosen rule is for the most part a redress rule that we identify with liberal-egalitarian justice. This is an addition to the extant literature on distributive principles inspired by Rawls's second principle of justice, generally focused on the choice of a distributive scheme, rather than the choice of a distributive principle itself, and neglecting the motivational component (Frohlich et al ., 1987; Frohlich and Oppenheimer, 1990; 1992; Jackson and Hill, 1995; Lissowski et al ., 1991; Michelbach et al ., 2003; Yaari and Bar-Hillel, 1984). In our case, for the first time subjects distribute the income they generate through a real-effort task.…”

Section: Meaning Limitations and Implications For Effective Instituti...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Liberal egalitarian justice in the distribution of a common output. Experimental evidence and implications for effective institution design

Antoni

Faillo

Francés-Gómez³

et al. 2022

Journal of Institutional Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an experiment that sets up a context of production of a common output obtained by using production means that are randomly and unequally distributed. Before the production phase, subjects must choose a distributive principle for the output division, under ignorance of the allocation of the production means. Subsequently, they make a distributive choice fully aware of their luck and performance. The aim of the experiment is to test, first, whether ordinary subjects in an impartial situation are capable of converging on a fair principle of distribution – able of redressing the arbitrariness of the initial production means allocation; and second, whether these same ordinary subjects are capable of actually following that principle in a real distributive choice that excludes coercion, reputation effects and other forms of social pressures. The main finding is that a distributive rule that redresses initial inequalities is both accepted ex-ante and actually applied ex-post by most individuals. Our conclusion is relevant for the issue of realism of normative theories of justice and the possibility of institution design aimed at implementing distributive justice principles and policies.

show abstract

“…It is important to remember that all principles of distributive justice require some assumptions about the level of measurement of utilities and their interpersonal comparability; and principles differ with respect to the assumptions on which they are based. Utilitarian principle, for instance, assumes cardinal utilities and a common unit of measurement, while Rawls' lexicographic maximin assumes ordinal utilities and full comparability of utility levels among all individuals (see Kern 1978;Lissowski 1986;Sen 1974).…”

Section: Distributive Justice Representation Of the Social Choice Promentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing the Best Social Order: New Principles of Justice and Normative Dimensions of Choice

Lissowski

Świstak

1995

Am Polit Sci Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many standard rules of aggregating individual preferences; majority rule is but one example. These rules determine what we typically consider to be a fair or a just solution to the problem of social choice. Yet we know very little, either about how these solutions relate to what a person, not a rule, would choose as a fair outcome or about what ethical or political beliefs would guide people in their choices. An empirical study was conducted to address these problems. As standard normative solutions fail to explain choices obtained in the study, we propose a new set of solutions, which generalize two classical principles of justice: Rawlsian and conservative. These generalized solutions fit the data remarkably well. More important, they uncover two normative dimensions within which choices turn out to be very consistent. These dimensions, we conjecture, indicate subjects' underlying attitudes. We use this theory to compare ethical-political attitudes in samples from Poland, Japan, and the United States.

show abstract

Principles of Distributive Justice

Cited by 54 publications

References 3 publications

Organizational Justice and Black Applicants' Reactions to Affirmative Action.

Organizational Justice and Black Applicants' Reactions to Affirmative Action.

Liberal egalitarian justice in the distribution of a common output. Experimental evidence and implications for effective institution design

Choosing the Best Social Order: New Principles of Justice and Normative Dimensions of Choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About