Distributive justice
Distributive justice refers to the fairness of distribution rules and their results. Accordingly, there is a rule of justice and a result justice.
The result Justice is a concept of justice, the states of a society defined as justice, in which play all members of society the benefit of the Company (" result" ) in substantially the same extent, but its benefits from the company reduced accordingly at any fault of the member will. As opposed to the result of righteousness, the rule of justice is considered.
Antiquity and Middle Ages
Aristotle considered the state laws as a formal object of the rule of justice, Aquinas in partial Subsequently the common good. The righteousness of the law is the general justice that he ( commutative G. ) faces of distributive justice ( distributive G. ) and of commutative justice as separate from his point of view types for Justice Thomas.
Experimental game theory
Games in the area of distributive justice often turn out to be a combination of games directly to an openly called result (eg at stimulating of money) with games to play by the rules themselves latter games are also referred to as " Metaspiele " and are, among other things because of their internal feedback complex than the games is a simple utility function with fixed rules: Rule justice framework condition and in-game item at the same time. Apparent paradoxes and irrationalities arise in such a combined games for the observer looking only partial aspects of distribution games. In case of repeated games between companies even complete self- sacrifices of individual players by Metaspiele be explainable.
To study the assessment of " fairness " in the distribution of goods variations of the ultimatum game can be used. In the following examples, the sanctioning of distribution in a global research project of 12 American and a Colombian university was investigated. Here, this sanctioning may also have disadvantages for the sanctioning, but accepts this:
- " Ultimatum " for two players: Player A is offered a sum of money, he has to share with Player B. Player A Player B has a share (between more than 0% and a maximum of 100 %). Only when player B accepts the offer, A and B will be paid their resolute of A shares in the amount of money. If Player B does not accept the offer, then no one gets anything. Both players lose.
- " Ultimatum " for three players: How " ultimatum " for two players, but a third player C can Player A "punish" in addition, it should hold A for the " selfish". Player C gets to unconditionally a sum of money and the right players to punish A for an inadequate supply of Player B. It is left to Player C, to assess what offer was inadequate was. If Player C decides on a punishment of A, it determines how much punishment A must pay. The cost of punishment for Player C: One-third of the amount that he has appointed as a punishment for the player A.
- "Dictator" for two players: How " ultimatum " for two players, but B has to accept the offer. So B can not punish A by abandonment.
In two out of the three described "playing" the punishment is associated with costs. Thus, the punishment can be assigned a value. It is believed that people only act selflessly when selfishness is sanctioned. However, there were differences in the assessment of the adequacy of the shares of B of A is replaced.
In two cases in Accra (Ghana ) and the Sanquinaga (Colombia ) B player did not take shares, even if they were too high. The B- players rejected here not only unreasonable selfishness, but also an unreasonable from their point of view favoring their own
System Theory and Econometrics
In closed systems, DC distribution in all categories, the most likely result of taking place in such systems processes. The entropy of the system has reached its maximum. Human societies are restricted open systems because they can export entropy, even if only to a limited extent. One way to reduce the entropy in society, is the increase in inequality in any society can be influenced by the category. Resources such as income and assets present here one of the most important categories dar. What is here as a result of a "fair" income or wealth distribution?
- The Gini coefficient is a no relation to real compensation processes constructed inequality measure. Thanks to its popularity, social scientists, however, have gained a lot of experience, the significance of different Gini coefficients.
- The Hoover inequality is the simplest of all inequality measures. It describes the redistribution of pressure in a tie aspiring society in which a balance could be achieved based on complete information with minimal effort.
- The symmetrized Theil index (mean of Theil- L and Theil- T index) is similar to the Hoover inequality. However, here the aggregated individual deviations from parity are additionally weighted by its information-theoretical meaning. The symmetrized Theil index describes the redistribution of pressure in einerm social system in which compensation would occur by random movements of people and resources. (. Every closed system of society would such a system to be internally increase inequality, systems need their environment - so often shared with the neighboring systems space - can strain with entropy, from which then again results in corresponding intersystemische distribution conflicts. )
If the symmetrized Theil index over the Hoover inequality, then drives the unequal distribution of compensation by itself, because the stochastic income redistribution is stronger than an intelligently controlled redistribution. ( At high inequality - as a high concentration of resources on a few places in the room - there are naturally a lot of scope for redistribution. )
If the symmetrized Theil index is below the Hoover inequality, then a controlled redistribution would be more effective. But then would also aware effort to control the redistribution are driven, thus incur costs, which reduced a profit of justice again. In this area, the uniform distribution has already reached a fairly high degree. Complete uniform distribution would be maximum entropy. Life, however, is characterized in that living systems actively maintain a minimum distance of their current entropy to the maximum entropy. Hence the need for a minimum level of inequality. In its vicinity are used for example Scandinavian companies operating their particular with very good supply of resources (Norway and Iceland also mE ).
If we now draw the Hoover inequality of the symmetrized Theil index, and to contribute this difference to the associated Gini coefficient (see graph), then there are two zones. Below a (based on deciles calculated ) Gini coefficient of about 40 %, the resulting distributions of real income differences between Theil index and the Hoover inequality are negative. In addition they are positive. Observable now is that the economic areas with the highest quality of life are all located near this passage at 40 % by the zero line. In the resource situation of the present here is an optimum value for inequality, in a free play of forces adjusts by itself and must be sought not only through normative control. Very large deviations from this value ( Gini coefficient by about 20% or about 60 % of distributed on equal income deciles ) are observable always associated with the use of strong violence.
The non-normative conditions described here, the people do not write before, what kind of distribution is fair, but they describe different degrees in which unequal distributions described to people and what information theoretical significance have different unequal distributions. Deciding which distribution is fair remains normative and therefore controversial.