Economic Justice

About: Economic Justice is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 41600 publications have been published within this topic receiving 661535 citations.

Justice and Identity: The Significance of Inclusion for Perceptions of Entitlement and the Justice Motive

Abstract: After considering the role of identity in justice concerns, predictions derived from a categorization approach to distributive justice and Tyler et al.’s group value theory of procedural justice were tested. Both approaches stress the role of one’s identity in terms of an inclusive self-category (including everyone potentially affected). In a longitudinal study, set in the context of the German unification process, East Germans (n = 179) were interviewed at two time points at an interval of 1 year. Cross-sectional and cross-lagged panel analyses yielded empirical evidence for the categorization approach. Perceived entitlement was based on the inclusive self-categorization as Germans, and at the second time point, perceived injustice led more to social protest the more strongly respondents categorized themselves as Germans. The predictions of group value theory were not supported. Explanations for the results focus on the role of the wider social context and contextual meanings of inclusive social categories.

Implicit effects of justice on self-identity.

Abstract: The authors provide one of the first tests of whether justice has effects at implicit or subconscious levels. By manipulating justice in a laboratory experiment, they found that the activation of interdependent and individual self-identities were higher when people experienced fairness and unfairness, respectively. Although these effects occurred at both implicit and explicit levels, they were stronger in the former case. These identity-based effects proved to be important because they mediated the effects of justice on trust and on cooperative and counterproductive behaviors. Implications of these findings for theory and practice are discussed.

Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice

Abstract: Agroecology has been criticized for being more labor-intensive than other more industrialized forms of agriculture. We challenge the assertion that labor input in agriculture has to be generally minimized and argue that besides quantity of work one should also consider the quality of work involved in farming. Early assessments on work quality condemned the deskilling of the rural workforce, whereas later criticisms have concentrated around issues related to fair trade and food sovereignty. We bring into the discussion the concept of contributive justice to welcome the added labor-intensity of agroecological farming. Contributive justice demands a work environment where people are stimulated to develop skills and learn to be productive. It also suggests a fairer distribution of meaningful work and tedious tasks. Building on the notion of contributive justice we explore which capabilities and types of social relationships are sustainably promoted and reinforced by agroecological farming practices. We argue that agroecological principles encourage a reconceptualization of farm work. Farmers are continuously stimulated to develop skills and acquire valuable experiential knowledge on local ecosystems and agricultural techniques. Further, generalized ecological studies recognize the significance of the farmer’s observations on natural resources management. This contributes to the development of a number of capabilities and leads to more bargaining power, facilitating self-determination. Hereby farm work is made more attractive to a younger generation, which is an essential factor for safeguarding the continuity of family farms.

Moral intuitions and economic models of distributive justice

Abstract: We argue that formal theories of justice cannot neglect the moral intuitions existing in society and illustrate this claim with empirical results. We analyse the perception of justice in a production context by starting from the surplus sharing model. Our questionnaire method is closely related to the work of Yaari and Bar-Hillel [14]. Our results suggest that differences in effort are considered to be the main justification for income differences. Our respondents strongly disagree about the remuneration of innate capabilities. It is further suggested that surplus sharing and cost sharing models cannot be treated symmetrically, because people react differently towards gains and losses.