Abstract
A small set of allocation principles is said to be behind several theories of distributive justice. However, disagreement about the appropriate relationship between these notions remains, so that compromises between principles may generate more agreement. Truncated utilitarianism is a prominent candidate. It demands maximising total wealth subject to a floor level of individual wealth for all people. Based on some well-known distributive notions, we developed a questionnaire setting and confronted student respondents with corresponding allocation problems, where an exogenously given poverty line served as a floor. However, support for allocations resulting from this specific interpretation of truncated utilitarianism remained rather low. This is surprising because the respective solution was close to an equal split of resources, and aspects of efficiency and responsibility were explicitly introduced to promote more general acceptance. We argue that people may either wish to see higher floor levels or are more inequality averse than probably expected. Moreover, high support for an unconditional consideration of the poverty line can be witnessed, even though aspects of responsibility, but not efficiency arguments, display an influence. In general, attitudes with respect to the equality–efficiency trade-off are found to remain heterogeneous, although different equality concerns are prominent. Furthermore, trade-offs are moderated by the responsibility principle.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow K. (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York
Atkinson A. B. (1970) On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory 2: 244–263
Atkinson A. B., Stiglitz J. E. (1987) Lectures on public economics. McGraw-Hill, Singapore
Bar-Hillel M., Yaari M. (1993) Judgements of distributive justice. In: Mellers B. A., Baron J. (eds) Psychological perspectives on justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 55–84
Boulding K. E. (1962) Social justice in social dynamics. In: Brandt R. B. (eds) Social justice. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Cappelen A. W., Hole A. D., Sørensen E. Ø., Tungodden B. (2007) The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. American Economic Review 97: 818–827
Dolan P., Tsuchiya A. (2009) The social welfare function and individual responsibility: Some theoretical issues and empirical evidence. Journal of Health Economics 28: 210–220
Elster J. (1995) The empirical study of justice. In: Miller D., Walzer M. (eds) Pluralism, justice and equality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 81–98
Faravelli M. (2007) How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice. Journal of Public Economics 91: 1399–1422
Fleurbaey M. (2008) Fairness, responsibility, and welfare. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Frohlich N., Oppenheimer J. E. (1992) Choosing justice: An experimental approach to ethical theory. University of California Press, Berkeley
Gaertner W. (1994) Distributive justice: Theoretical foundations and empirical findings. European Economic Review 38: 711–720
Gaertner W. (2009) A primer in social choice theory (Revised edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gaertner W., Jungeilges J. (2002) Evaluation via extended orderings: Empirical findings from Western and Eastern Europe. Social Choice and Welfare 19: 29–55
Gaertner W., Jungeilges J., Neck R. (2001) Cross-cultural equity evaluations: A questionnaire-experimental approach. European Economic Review 45: 953–963
Gaertner W., Schwettmann L. (2007) Equity, responsibility and the cultural dimension. Economica 74: 627–649
Hammond P. J. (1976) Equity, Arrow’s conditions and Rawls’ difference principle. Econometrica 44: 793–804
Harsanyi J. C. (1955) Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63: 309–321
Harsanyi J. C. (1975) Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’s theory. The American Political Science Review 69: 594–606
Harsanyi J. C. (1978) Bayesian decision theory and utilitarian ethics. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 68: 223–228
Herreiner D. K., Puppe C. D. (2009) Envy freeness in experimental fair division problems. Theory and Decision 67: 65–100
Kalai E., Smorodinsky M. (1975) Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem. Econometrica 43: 513–518
Konow J. (2000) Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. American Economic Review 90: 1072–1091
Konow J. (2001) Fair and square: The four sides of distributive justice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 46: 137–164
Konow J. (2003) Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature 41: 1188–1239
Konow J. (2005) Blind spots: The effects of information and stakes on fairness bias and dispersion. Social Justice Research 18: 349–390
Levitt S. D., List J. A. (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21: 153–174
Mack J., Lansley S. (1985) Poor Britain. Allen & Unwin, London
Michelbach P. A., Scott J. T., Matland R. E., Bornstein B. H. (2003) Doing Rawls justice: An experimental study of income distribution norms. American Journal of Political Science 47: 523–539
Miller D. (1992) Distributive justice: What the people think. Ethics 102: 555–593
Miller D. (1999) Principles of social justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Moore B. Jr. (1978) Injustice: The social bases of obedience and revolt. M. E. Shape, White Plains
Nash J. F. (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18: 155–162
Rawls J. (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Schokkaert E. (1999) M. Tout-le-monde est ‘post-welfariste’: Opinions sur la justice redistributive. Revue Economique 50: 811–831
Schwettmann L. (2009) Trading off competing allocation principles—Theoretical approaches and empirical investigations. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang
Scott J. T., Matland R. E., Michelbach P. A., Bornstein B. H. (2001) Just deserts: An experimental study of distributive justice norms. American Journal of Political Science 45: 749–767
Sen A. K. (1980) Equality of what?. In: McMurrin S. M. (eds) Tanner lectures on human values. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sen A. K. (1992) Inequality reexamined. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tan J. H. W., Bolle F. (2006) On the relative strengths of altruism and fairness. Theory and Decision 60: 35–67
Wagstaff A. (1991) QALYS and the equity-efficiency trade-off. Journal of Health Economics 10: 21–41
Williams A., Cookson R. (2000) Equity in health. In: Culyer A. J., Newhouse J. P. (eds) Handbook of health economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1863–1910
Wittman D. (1979) A diagrammatic exposition of justice. Theory and Decision 11: 207–237
Yaari M., Bar-Hillel M. (1984) On dividing justly. Social Choice and Welfare 1: 1–24
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schwettmann, L. Competing allocation principles: time for compromise?. Theory Decis 73, 357–380 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-011-9289-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-011-9289-9