Justice research

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With Justice Research (ger .: Social Justice Research) different research approaches from are psychology and the empirical social sciences called that deal with the existing in society attitudes, motives, perceptions and judgments for justice deal. Personal, social, economic and cultural factors influencing the respective points of view are examined.

In contrast to the analytical theories of justice in philosophy and political theory , justice research does not make any statements about what should be understood by justice, but instead uses empirical surveys to investigate what people think about justice and how they regard the given conditions judge their notion of justice.

The justice fountain in Frankfurt / Main. The representation of "justice" in the western culture is the judging Justitia , with scales (weighing), sword (punishing) and a bandage in front of the eyes (without looking at the person).

Goal setting

The basic objective of empirical justice research is to determine to what extent the ideas of justice that actually exist in the population are to be brought into line with theoretical concepts and to what extent this can be used to derive impulses for action in practical life. The findings of the justice researchers are used in politics, in mediation , but above all in organizations, for example for wage determination, promotions or assignments (organizational justice).

Social psychological research deals with the emergence, experience and judgment of injustices and the reactions to them; because actual or supposed injustice (s) are strongly perceived and sometimes lead to violent reactions. Perceived injustice is an essential motive for demanding justice.

In the social sciences, especially in sociology , the question of how social institutions , e.g. the tax system, opportunities for gainful employment and education, access to the health care system, company remuneration systems or criminal law, affect notions of justice. At the same time, the social context of the respective values ​​is examined.

Analysis concepts

The investigations mainly relate to attitudes towards justice ( psychology ) and the extent to which these are reflected in the given social conditions ( social sciences ). The following questions are dealt with:

(1) What do individuals and societies believe is fair and why do they believe it?
(2) How do notions of justice influence current rewards and the existing distribution of goods in a society?
(3) What is the extent of perceived injustice in the event of a deviation from a just state of affairs?
(4) What are the behavioral and social consequences of a perceived injustice?

From a psychological point of view, what is of particular interest is the factors that influence a person's attitude towards their idea of ​​justice and the effects of circumstances judged to be unjust. What influence does moral education have? How do which procedural principles and distribution norms affect the sense of justice? In most cases, surveys are carried out using the methods of empirical social research .

A fundamental distinction must be made between a micro perspective and a macro perspective. In the case of “micro-justice”, statements are made with reference to individual persons. For “macro justice”, principles are examined, the results of which relate to larger social groups in a person-neutral manner. Often societal data such as an existing income distribution or information on the social structure are considered. A principle for promotion or wage grading thus concerns the micro level, while the state determination of a minimum wage takes place at the macro level. A macro-theoretical approach is institutional analysis , which asks whether social institutions such as the tax system, the pension system or the social market economy are justified by ideas of justice and whether the actual distribution results correspond to these justifications.

A second systematic distinction between research approaches can be made according to whether they focus on a single principle (one-dimensional) or on several principles (multi-dimensional). One-dimensional approaches are usually defined according to a universalistic principle and have a formal justice criterion. One such approach is utilitarianism . Even modern utilitarian theories, which are geared towards the evaluation of various preferences , ultimately focus on a uniform overall benefit. Multidimensional approaches, on the other hand, are particular and take into account several criteria of justice. The theory of justice by John Rawls , which is based on at least two principles of justice, can be classified as a multidimensional macro- theory . A one-dimensional micro-theory is the principle of merit, which Aristotle already described with the method of proportional distribution. A modern equivalent can be found in the theories of Homans and Adams (see below). A multidimensional approach at the micro level is the concept of realization opportunities of Amartya Sen . The spheres of justice by Michael Walzer and local justice by Jon Elster (see below) can be described as hybrid concepts , because these adopt different principles depending on the area.

Methodologically, a distinction is made between

  1. Correlation studies
    1. Observations (e.g. field studies)
    2. Surveys (interviews and questionnaires)
  2. Experiments (scenarios).

development

Pioneer of Justice research in social psychology in the 1950s was the theory of cognitive dissonance by Leon Festinger and his social comparison theory. George C. Homans first introduced a concept of distributive justice in his exchange theory of social behavior. Thereafter, an interaction should lead to an appropriate reward in relation to the effort.

Equity theory

A pioneering theory from this research area is the equity theory of J. Stacy Adams, according to which the relationship between the input and the output received is based on a social reference, for example wages and work performed on the income of a reference person.

The equity theory includes the following concept:

  • All individuals try to maximize the ratio of performance / output (input / output).
  • The individuals in a group assume that they can increase the overall benefit through cooperation .
  • Equity is achieved through proportionality (corresponds to distributive justice in Aristotle ).
  • Generally accepted rules for distribution are developed within groups.
  • Within groups, those who comply with the rules are rewarded.
  • Deviators within a group are sanctioned.
  • If people within groups feel treated unfairly, this creates discomfort.
  • "The greater the imbalance that exists, the greater the discomfort you will feel and the more you will try to restore equity."

Not only the theorists of justice point out that actions are judged not only according to the principle of rationality, but above all on the basis of needs and, in the case of general rights ( basic rights ), according to the principle of equality ( egalitarianism ). Because people are viewed exclusively as utility maximizers, the equity theory corresponds to utilitarianism or welfare economics .

Justice Motive Theory

Melvin Lerner's theory of justice motives, represented in Germany by Leo Montada and J. Maes. examines the “ just world belief ”, ie the extent of the conviction that the lifeworld is fundamentally oriented towards the standard of justice.

Procedural justice

Gerald S. Leventhal pointed out that perceived justice is determined not only by the distribution as such, but also by the distribution process. He established six principles of procedural justice:

  • Consistency - everyone is treated the same at all times
  • Open-mindedness - every point of view is taken into account
  • Accuracy - complete information and accurate data collection
  • Correctability - Admissibility of complaints
  • Representativeness - adequate consideration of all interests
  • Ethical justification - justifiability against the existing moral standards

Beyond the development of principles of procedural justice, Leventhal takes the view that the principle of merit is insufficient as the sole basis of equity theory. Rather, the return, the just result of an exchange relationship, depends on a combination of the rules of performance (contribution), needs and equality as well as other rules. These factors must be weighted differently depending on personal preferences and the specific situation. The factors can conflict with each other and must be brought into balance in relation to the individual case.

Local justice

Jon Elster brought in another aspect under the heading of “local justice”. He pointed out that at the decentralized level a large number of questions of justice are decided in relation to scarce goods, which are not in the focus of society as a whole, but are of great importance for the individual. These include the allocation of kindergarten places, admission to a university, the allocation of transplants or the selection of employees for promotions and layoffs. In practice, there are equality-oriented principles (lottery, rotation), time-based concepts (queue), person-dependent criteria (age, gender, number of siblings) and needs-oriented concepts (welfare, efficiency) as well as combinations of these approaches (e.g. point evaluation systems). As a result, Elster points out that due to the need for justification, an increasing trend towards the replacement of simple distribution criteria by methods of procedural justice can be observed.

Pierre Bourdieu

The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu , in particular with his works The Subtle Differences and The Misery of the World, has presented empirical studies to research social facts that point to injustice.

Bourdieu's theory of social inequality works out that the individual lifestyle depends on belonging to a social class . The ruling class, which has cultural and economic capital, strives for social demarcation. The middle group has less cultural and economic capital. Their aim is to imitate the upper class. On the other hand, the working class is determined in its lifestyle by the compulsion of necessities. The social structure leads to a habitus that is reflected in certain cultural practices.

Survey results in Germany

The Socio-Economic Panel

A special survey within the framework of the socio-economic panel in 2003 confirms for Germany the view that equality, performance and needs are viewed by the population as simultaneously valid criteria of justice.

  • The statement "Social justice means that all citizens have the same living conditions." 33% fully agreed and 34% somewhat agreed.
  • The statement “There is only an incentive for performance if the differences in income are large enough” 28% fully agreed and 42% somewhat agreed.
  • the statement “a state [should] guarantee a minimum standard of living for everyone.” 53% fully agreed and 30% somewhat agreed.

There is a clear majority for these answers for all three positions.

In another special SOEP survey from 2006, a clear majority of Germans spoke out in favor of expanding equal opportunities with regard to access to the labor market and to state social benefits at the level of the European Union.

Justice as a problem within Germany

In Germany, a survey of 2,500 people was carried out in 1996 and 1998 on the subject of “Justice as an internal German problem”. The results of this study are summarized as follows:

  1. East and West Germans rate the job situation in the East as significantly worse and rate this worse position in the East as unjust.
  2. West Germans have a better image of East Germans than of themselves. With East Germans it is the other way round. Your image of yourself is much more positive than your image of West Germans.
  3. Compared to West Germans, East Germans are disadvantaged in various ways according to objective criteria in their professional life.
  4. With regard to the situation in professional life, the two feelings of fear and hopelessness predominate in East and West. Both feelings are much more pronounced in the east than in the west.
  5. The life satisfaction of East Germans is in many areas worse than that of West Germans. Nevertheless, general well-being and mental health are equally good in both parts of the country.
  6. General well-being decreases as a person worries about the future of working life and is jealous of the better working conditions in the other part of the country. Feelings of guilt about good career opportunities also pose a risk to mental health. Proud of the good professional situation in your own part of the country, on the other hand, protects your well-being. These relationships apply in East and West.
  7. Mental health also depends on life satisfaction in four important areas of life: satisfaction with oneself, satisfaction with one's personal professional situation, satisfaction with one's own health, satisfaction with a partnership or marriage.
  8. After all, the image that one has of fellow human beings in one's own part of the country contributes to mental health. A collective self-confidence protects well-being. This connection may explain the surprising finding that East Germans are no less mentally healthy than West Germans despite greater objective and subjective stress. The pronounced collective self-confidence may have a compensatory effect in East Germans.
  9. In retrospect, the well-being of West Germans has risen continuously over the past ten years. There was a slump among East Germans in 1991 and 1992. Since then, well-being has increased continuously.
  10. There is a clear connection between judgments of justice and feelings: Anyone who experiences their own part of the country unjustly disadvantaged in the professional sector reacts with fear and envy. Since these two feelings are particularly closely related to general well-being and mental health, it can be concluded that perceived injustices in reunified Germany endanger mental health.
  11. Feelings of guilt because of the relatively better professional conditions in their own part of the country motivate West Germans to show solidarity and willingness to renounce in favor of the East.

Further surveys on inequality

Further studies of the social structure are based on the welfare survey and the income and consumption sample . These contain information on inequality in Germany, with the focus on recording the overall living situation and on studying poverty in Germany. A systematic evaluation takes place in the poverty and wealth reports of the federal government.

Further empirical findings

According to David Miller, no justice research can do without an underlying, at least implicitly, theory of justice. On the other hand, every theory of justice needs to be checked against empirical research results if it is to stand up to practice. In developing his theory of justice, Miller examines a variety of empirical studies for this purpose, from which he derives some general results.

According to Miller, the empirical studies show that in practice

  1. pluralistic claims to justice are balanced against each other, and
  2. the orientation towards the principles of justice depends on the social context.

The various empirical studies lead to the following general statements:

  • "It is likely that both the intuitive notions of fair distribution and the actual distribution practices underlying those notions will vary from good to good."
  • In the case of different performance in a particular activity, justice is judged on the micro level according to merit, but with restrictions.
    • "The more group solidarity there is, the more the favored distribution shifts towards equality."
    • Reward also depends on the effort with which someone performs.
    • The principle of equality plays a more important role in long-term groups than in temporary groups.
    • Groups having a discussion about distributional principles tend to be more equitable.
    • A group's preference depends on its objectives. If the goal is to increase efficiency, the performance principle is preferred; if the goal is group harmony, the principle of equality dominates.
    • Competence in and of itself does not justify a higher claim to earnings. Effort must be added.
  • In general, the performance principle meets with broad approval, which in various surveys was at least 70%.
  • Various studies show that the inequality that is considered acceptable is lower (income ratio of 12: 1 when comparing an elevator driver with a lawyer or top manager) than the ratios that actually exist in reality.
  • Different education is not a reason for unequal income for the same type of work.
  • In contrast to needs, preferences are not a criterion for fair distribution.
  • In the case of needs-based redistribution, minimum standards of efficiency must be observed (for example in medical care).
  • In principle, basic services, including housing and health, for people who are unable to support themselves are approved, albeit with restrictions.
    • Need because of laziness and aimlessness is not accepted.
    • Regardless of social status, there are relatively uniform ideas about what constitutes the necessary standard of living .
  • Notions of justice follow (but not only) self-interest and are adaptive (reflect existing social conditions).
    • While workers 'unions are strongly aiming for egalitarianism, academics' unions place much greater emphasis on qualification, productivity, responsibility and the importance of the task.
    • While there is consensus that there should be wage differentiation at all, its extent is controversial.
    • Higher-ranked people emphasize the influence of personal responsibility for poverty and wealth, while lower-ranked people tend to use structural characteristics such as inequality of opportunity.

On the relationship between normative theories and empirical research

Both representatives of theories of justice and representatives of empirical justice research are interested in whether and to what extent theories of justice can have a correspondence in the everyday understanding of the population. For this to be the case, theories of justice must meet certain requirements:

  • Adequacy: The distribution mechanisms provided for in normative theory must be designed in such a way that they can be applied to the actual social constellations and social structures.
  • Acceptability: A theory based on moral values ​​can only be recognized by reasonable people if it is comprehensible, coherent and morally acceptable.
  • Applicability: A theory of justice only makes sense if it can serve as a guideline in the context of political decisions. Based on political practice, the theory must lead one to expect that decisions based on it will meet with the approval of the voters concerned.

One of the fundamental problems when normative theorists and justice researchers work together is how to deal with the concept of justice. With all the different ways of defining the term, it can be assumed that normative theories are at least based on impartiality and a moral rule as a constitutive criterion of justice. Furthermore, normative justice demands well-founded decisions (reason) and judgments that disregard personal interests. In justice research, however, what the respondent actually understands as being fair. The empirical surveys only contain the word "just" or "unjust" as a stimulus , without specifying the content of the term.

Frohlich / Oppenheimer's experiment

A concrete experiment to test the theory of justice of John Rawls was carried out by Norman Frohlich and Joe A. Oppenheimer. In this experiment, several test groups had to choose between four distribution principles:

  1. Maximizing Least Income
  2. Maximizing the median income
  3. Maximizing the average income while ensuring a minimum income
  4. Maximizing median income with a maximum difference between highest and lowest income

If the group would agree on a principle, it was promised to distribute a sum of money among the members according to this principle. Who received what amount should be drawn. Otherwise the principle of distribution should also be determined by lot. Most of the time, an agreement was reached and the principle that guarantees a minimum income (No. 3) was chosen.

The difference principle was clearly not favored by Rawls (No. 1). The unrestricted utility maximization of utilitarianism (No. 2) was also not preferred. However, the general conditions of the experiment do not allow a clear conclusion. On the one hand, contrary to Rawls' requirements, real people do not abstract from their individual abilities in a real decision-making situation. On the other hand, the test subjects were predominantly students, so that there was no neutral, representative social structure in the experiment.

International Social Justice Project

Attitudes towards income equity (ISJP 1991)
fair /
actual
income
workers
 fair /
actual
income
board
 Actual relation
worker /
board
 Target relation Change
is to be expected
Western countries
United States 1.363 0.815 0.230 0.319 +0.089
Japan 1.321 0.891 0.158 0.261 +0.105
Germany (West) 1.353 0.860 0.136 0.243 +0.107
Netherlands 1.273 0.813 0.207 0.353 +0.146
Great Britain 1.411 0.721 0.153 0.319 +0.166
Eastern European countries
Czech Republic 1.433 1.484 0.236 0.362 +0.126
Germany (East) 1.328 0.700 0.180 0.338 +0.180
Poland 2,200 1.002 0.226 0.478 +0.252
Hungary 1.793 0.710 0.165 0.423 +0.258
Russia 2,344 1,426 0.293 0.463 +0.170
Slovenia 2,451 0.988 0.099 0.344 +0.245
Slovak Republic 1,789 0.977 0.244 0.478 +0.254
Bulgaria 2.177 1.167 0.348 0.652 +0.304
Estonia 5.288 1.508 0.262 0.638 +0.376

The International Social Justice Project is an international research project with the participation of scientists from twelve countries. The subject of research is the individual attitudes of the population towards social, economic and political justice in the twelve participating countries. For this purpose, a basic survey was carried out in 1991, which was supplemented with a control survey in 1996. Further surveys were carried out in Germany in 2000 and 2004.

An important area of ​​analysis of the ISJP is the question of attitudes towards income equity . In the survey of 1991, the actually perceived and the estimated income of a CEO and that of a worker were compared. The results in the countries examined are summarized in the table below.

In all countries, respondents viewed an increase in incomes as an improvement in equity. The need for an increase was estimated to be higher in the Eastern European countries. Estonia stands out with an increase by a factor of five that is considered necessary. In western countries and in some eastern European countries, the view was that board salaries should be reduced by 20% to 30% to ensure fair distribution. In other Eastern European countries, especially in the Czech Republic. In Russia and Estonia, the chairmen of the board were also granted an increase in income, although with the exception of the Czech Republic it is lower than the fair increase in income for a worker.

In columns three and four, a direct ratio of the income of the workers to the income of the CEOs is formed. The comparison between target and actual shows in all countries that a ratio that is more favorable for workers is seen as fair. The fluctuation ranges from 26.1% in Japan to over 60% in Bulgaria and Estonia.

This result of the ISJP survey indicates that the majority of the respondents advocate the principle of equality. At least the result differs from the experiment by Frohlich / Oppenheimer in that a limitation and even a reduction is seen as fair for upper incomes. Stefan Liebig points out that the survey conditions of the two studies are unequal. In Frohlich / Oppenheimer's experiment, the participants were faced with a veil of ignorance, similar to Rawls . They developed a model for fair distribution without knowing what proportion of the amount to be distributed they would actually receive. In this situation, unequal distribution was viewed as an opportunity rather than an unjust. In a survey, however, everyone knows what position they actually occupy in real society. By preferring a more egalitarian distribution, the majority of the respondents are better off. "The assumption is therefore that the data collected using the classic instruments of attitude research are much more strongly influenced by 'personal preferences' than is the case with the experimental results of Frohlich and Oppenheimer."

literature

  • Morton Deutsch : Distributive Justice. A social-psychological perspective. Yale University Press, New Haven et al. 1985, ISBN 0-300-03290-0 .
  • Ulrich Druwe , Volker Kunz (ed.): Political justice. Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1999, ISBN 3-8100-1982-8 .
  • Jon Elster : Local Justice. How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens. Russell Sage Foundation, New York NY 1992, ISBN 0-87154-231-5 .
  • Stefan Empter, Robert B. Vehrkamp (ed.): Social justice - an inventory. Bertelsmann Foundation Publishing House, Gütersloh 2007, ISBN 978-3-89204-925-8 .
  • George C. Homans : Elementary Forms of Social Behavior. Westdeutscher Verlag, Cologne et al. 1968.
  • Melvin J. Lerner: The belief in a just world. A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press, New York NY et al. 1980, ISBN 0-306-40495-8 .
  • Stefan Liebig , Holger Lengfeld (Hrsg.): Interdisciplinary justice research. To link empirical and normative perspectives. Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main et al. 2002, ISBN 3-593-37012-3 .
  • Gerold Mikula (ed.): Justice and social interaction. Experimental and theoretical contributions from psychological research. Huber, Bern et al. 1980, ISBN 3-456-80707-4 .
  • David Miller: Principles of Social Justice (= theory and society 58). Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main et al. 2007, ISBN 978-3-593-38152-7 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld: Justice research as an interdisciplinary project, in: Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld (Eds.): Interdisciplinary Justice Research. Linking empirical and normative perspectives , Campus, Hamburg 2002, 7 - 20, here 8
  2. ↑ Stefan Liebig: Models and findings of empirical justice research in Germany using the example of income and tax justice, in: Stefan Empter and Robert B. Vehrkamp (eds.): Social justice - an inventory , Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh 2007, 111-135, here 111 ( online version ( memento of the original from June 10, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this note. ) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / egora.uni-muenster.de
  3. ↑ "The starting point of social psychological and sociological empirical justice research is the motivational power of experiences of injustice, ie the question of the extent to which experiences of injustice and perceptions of justice or injustice influence people's actions.", Kerstin Haase: Justice and impartiality. On the relationship between normative and empirical theories of justice, in: Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld (eds.): Interdisciplinary research on justice. Linking empirical and normative perspectives , Campus, Hamburg 2002, 53–75, here 54–55
  4. ↑ Christine Porschke & Erich H. Witte: Psychological factors of tax justice ( Memento of the original dated December 2, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.uni-hamburg.de
  5. ↑ Christof Mandry : Education and Justice  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF file; 290 kB) and Jürgen Oelkers: Education and Justice  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF file; 359 kB)@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.icep-berlin.de  @1@ 2Template: Toter Link / paed-services.uzh.ch  
  6. ↑ Detlef Schwefel: Justice and Health (PDF file; 111 kB), in: Razum, Oliver et alii (ed.): Globalization - Justice - Health. An international comparative introduction to public health. Hans Huber Verlag, Bern 2006, 65–78
  7. ↑ Johannes Schwarze: Just wages? ( Memento of the original from November 15, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF file; 230 kB) An empirical analysis of subjective earned income @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.helberger-festschrift.de
  8. ↑ Stefan Liebig: Empirical Justice , ISGF work report 41 ( Memento of the original from January 8, 2005 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , 2 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www2.hu-berlin.de
  9. ↑ Clara Sabbagh: A taxonomy of normative and empirical theories of distributive justice, in: Liebig / Lengfeld, 23 - 52
  10. ↑ Henning Adam and Catrin Yazdani: Psychological Justice Research, in: Ulrich Druwe / Volker Kunz (eds.): Politische Gerechtigkeit , Leske + Budrich, Opladen 1999, 145–166, here 147
  11. ↑ George C. Homans: Elementary forms of social behavior , Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1968
  12. ↑ J. Stacy Adams: Inequity in Social Exchange , in: Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.): Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.2, Academic Press, New York 1965, 267-300 as well as: Elain Walster and G. William Walster: Equity and Social Justice . Journal of Social Issues 31, 1975, pp. 21-43
  13. ↑ Presentation after Kerstin Haase: Justice and impartiality. On the relationship between normative and empirical theories of justice, in: Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld (eds.): Interdisciplinary research on justice. To link empirical and normative perspectives , Campus, Hamburg 2002, 53–75, here 64–65
  14. ↑ William Austin and Elaine Hatfield: Equity theory, power and social justice, in: Gerold Mikula (ed.): Justice and social interaction , Huber, Bern 1980, 25–68, here 26–27
  15. ^ Melvin Lerner: The belief in a just world. A fundamental delusion . Plenum Press, New York 1980
  16. ↑ Stefan Liebig: Empirical Justice Research ( Memento of the original from January 8, 2005 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www2.hu-berlin.de
  17. ↑ Claudia Dalbert : The General Justice WeIt Scale (PDF file; 230 kB)
  18. ↑ Gerald S. Leventhal: It's not just about fairness. A theory of distribution preferences, in: Gerold Mikula (Ed.): Justice and social interaction , Huber, Bern 1980, 185 - 250
  19. ↑ Jon Elster: Local Justice. How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens, New York 1992
  20. ↑ Peter A. Berger: German Inequality - A Sketch, in: From Politics and Contemporary History , 28–29 / 2005, 7–8 ( online ; PDF file; 2.97 MB)
  21. ↑ Jürgen Gerhards and Holger Lengfeld: Europeanization of Justice from the Citizens' Perspective (PDF file; 2.32 MB), in: Social Justice , From Politics and Contemporary History 47/2009 of November 16, 2009, 21–26
  22. ↑ Manfred Schmitt, Leo Montada & Jürgen Maes: Justice as an internal German problem: final report to the DFG (PDF file; 442 kB)
  23. ↑ press release
  24. ↑ see link collection ( Memento of the original dated August 3, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. current in social policy @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.sozialpolitik-aktuell.de
  25. ↑ David Miller: Principles of Social Justice, Campus, Frankfurt 2007, Chapter 4: “Distributive Justice: What People Think About It,” 104-138
  26. ↑ David Miller: Principles of social justice, Campus, Frankfurt 2007, 106 with reference to Michael Walzer: Sphären der Gerechtigkeit. A plea for plurality and equality. Campus, Frankfurt, New York 2006, as well as Jon Elster: Local Justice. How Institutions Allocate Scarce Goods and Necessary Burdens, New York 1992
  27. ↑ Miller 107, with reference to: William I. Griffith, Jane Sell: The Effects of Competition on Allocators' Preferences for Contributive and Retributive Justice Rules, in: European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1988, 443-455; Morton Deutsch: Distributive Justice, Yale University Press, New Haven 1985; Melvin J. Lerner: The Justice Motive "Equity" and "Parity" among Children, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 1974, 539-550
  28. ↑ Miller 108, reference to: Egon Kayser, Helmut Lamm: Causal Explanation of Performance Differences on Allocations among Friends, in: Journal of Social Psychology, 115, 1981, 73-81
  29. ↑ Miller 108, with reference to: Gerold Mikula: On the Role of Justice in Allocation Decision, in: ders. (Ed.): Justice and Social Interaction, Hans Huber, Bern 1980
  30. ^ Miller 108, Morton Deutsch: Distributive Justice, Yale University Press, New Haven 1985, chapter 10
  31. ↑ Miller 109 with reference to Gerald S. Leventhal: The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations, in: Leonard Berkovitz, Elaine Walster: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York 1976
  32. ↑ Miller 109, he explains this on the basis of a study on high jump performances by Gerald S. Leventhal, James W. Michaels: Locus of Cause and Equity as Determinants of Reward Allocations, in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 1971, 229-238
  33. ↑ Miller 111 with reference to the following studies: Adam Swift, Gordon Marshall, Carol Burgoyne, David Routh: Distributive Justice: Does it Make What the People Think ?, in: James R. Kluegel, David S. Mason, Bernd Wegener (eds. ): Social Justice and Political Change, Aldine de Gruyter, New York 1995, 29; Tom W. Smith: Social Inequality in Cross-National Perspectives, in: Diane F. Alwin (Ed.): Attitudes to Inequality and the Role of Government, Sociaal en Culturel Planbureau, Rijswijk 1990; Stefan Svallfors: Dimensions of Inequality: A Comparison of Attitudes in Sweden and Britain, in: European Sociological Review, 9, 1993, 272
  34. ↑ Miller 113, Sidney Verba, Gary R. Orren: Equality in America: The View of the Top, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1985, chapter 8
  35. ↑ Miller 114, James D. Kluegel, Eliot R. Smith: Beliefs About Inequality: Americans' Views of What is and What Ought to Be, Aldine de Gruyter, New York 1986, 113
  36. ^ Miller 118
  37. ^ Miller 118, Menahem E. Yaari, Maya Bar-Hillel: On Dividing Justly, in: Social Choice and Welfare, 1, 1984, 1-25
  38. ↑ Miller 120, Herbert McClosky, John Zaller: The American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and Democracy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1984, 272; Peter Taylor-Gooby: Public Opinion, Ideology and State Welfare, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1985
  39. ^ Miller 120
  40. ↑ Miller 121, Joanna Mack, Stewart Lansley: Poor Britain, Allen and Unwin, London 1985, chapter 2
  41. ^ Miller 132
  42. ^ Miller 127, Jon Elster: The Cement of Society. A Study of Social Order, Cambridge University Press, London 1989; Geir Hoegsnes: Wage, Bargaining and Norms of Fairness. A Theoretical Framework for Analyzing the Norwegian Wage Formation, in: Acta Sociologica, 32, 1989, 339-357; Richard Hyman, Ian Brough: Social Values ​​and Industrial Relations, Blackwell, Oxford 1975; Jonathan Kelly, Mariah DR Evans: The Legitimation of Inequality: Occupational Earnings in Nine Nations, in: American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1993, 75-125
  43. ↑ Miller 128, Jonathan Kelly, Mariah DR Evans: The Legitimation of Inequality: Occupational Earnings in Nine Nations, in: American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1993, 107 and 116
  44. ↑ Miller 132, James D. Kluegel, Eliot R. Smith: Beliefs About Inequality: Americans' Views of What ist and What Ought to Be, Aldine de Gruyter, New York 1986, Chapters 3 and 4
  45. ↑ Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld: Justice research as an interdisciplinary project, in: Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld (Eds.): Interdisciplinary Justice Research. To link empirical and normative perspectives , Campus, Hamburg 2002, 7–20, here 10–12
  46. ↑ Stefan Liebig: Justice attitudes and justice judgments, in: Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld (eds.): Interdisciplinary research on justice. To link empirical and normative perspectives , Campus, Hamburg 2002, 77–102, here 82–83
  47. ↑ Norman Frohlich and Joe A. Oppenheimer: Choosing Justice. An Experimental Approach to Ethical theory, University of California Press, Berkeley 1992
  48. ^ Groups generally chose a floor constraint. The groups wanted an income floor to be guaranteed to the worst-off individuals- this floor was to act aa safety net for all individuals. But after this constraint was set, they wished to preserve incentives so as to maximize production and hence average income. Only occasionally was there a sustained interest in the imposition of a ceiling on incomes (a range constraint). ”, Norman Frohlich and Joe A. Oppenheimer: Choosing Justice. An Experimental Approach to Ethical theory, University of California Press, Berkeley 1992, quoted from: Stefan Liebig: Gerechtigkeitslösungen und Gerechtigkeitsjätze, in: Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld (eds.): Interdisciplinary research on justice. Linking empirical and normative perspectives , Campus, Hamburg 2002, 77–102, here 84
  49. ↑ International Social Justice Project ( Memento of the original of March 24, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www2.hu-berlin.de
  50. ↑ Empirical Justice Analysis of the Federal Republic of Germany
  51. ↑ Stefan Liebig, Jürgen Schupp: Wage injustice in Germany? (PDF file; 623 kB), in: DIW weekly report 47/2004
  52. ↑ Representation and data according to Stefan Liebig: Justice attitudes and justice judgments, in: Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld (eds.): Interdisciplinary justice research. Linking empirical and normative perspectives, Campus, Hamburg 2002, 77–102, here 84–85
  53. ↑ Stefan Liebig: Justice attitudes and justice judgments, in: Stefan Liebig and Holger Lengfeld (eds.): Interdisciplinary research on justice. Linking empirical and normative perspectives, Campus, Hamburg 2002, 77–102, here 86