The Experts below are selected from a list of 21702 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Simon Caney - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Global Distributive Justice
The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory, 2018Co-Authors: Simon CaneyAbstract:This chapter explores the relevance of facts and empirical enquiry for the normative project of enquiring what principles of Distributive Justice, if any, apply at the global level. Is empirical research needed for this kind of enquiry? And if so, how? Claims about global Distributive Justice often rest on factual assumptions. Seven different ways in which facts about national, regional and global politics (and hence empirical research into global politics) might inform accounts of global Distributive Justice are examined. A deep understanding of the nature of global politics and the world economy (and thus empirical research on it) is needed: to grasp the implications of principles of global Distributive Justice; to evaluate such principles for their attainability and political feasibility; to assess their desirability; and, first, to conceptualize the subject-matter of global Distributive Justice and to formulate the questions that accounts of global Distributive Justice need to answer.
-
Global Distributive Justice and the State
Political Studies, 2008Co-Authors: Simon CaneyAbstract:Many hold that the state has normative significance because its borders define the scope of egalitarian principles of Distributive Justice. On this view egalitarian principles of Distributive Justice should be applied within the state but should not be adopted at the global level. This article examines two reasons for accepting this view and for rejecting global egalitarianism, and finds both wanting. It then presents three challenges to any view that holds that the scope of principles of Distributive Justice should be determined by the boundaries of the state. It concludes by noting four distinct ways in which the state has normative significance, each of which can be endorsed by global egalitarians.
-
Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and Distributive Justice
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume, 2005Co-Authors: Simon CaneyAbstract:In recent years a powerful case has been made in defence of a system of global governance in which supra-state institutions are accountable directly to the citizens of the world. This political vision- calling for what is commonly termed a ‘cosmopolitan democracy‘- has been defended with considerable imagination by thinkers such as Daniele Archibugi, Richard Falk, David Held, and Tony McGrew. At the same time, a number of powerful arguments have been developed in favour of cosmopolitan principles of Distributive Justice. Philosophers such as Brian Barry, Charles Beitz, Onora O'Neill, Thomas Pogge, Henry Shue, and Peter Singer have developed formidable arguments against wholly local theories of Distributive Justice and have argued for cosmopolitan conceptions of Distributive Justice.
-
Nationality, Distributive Justice and the Use of Force
Journal of Applied Philosophy, 1999Co-Authors: Simon CaneyAbstract:To whom do we owe obligations of Distributive Justice? In the last decade a number of distinguished political theorists - such as David Miller and Yael Tamir - have defended a nationalist account of our Distributive obligations. This paper examines their account of Distributive Justice. In particular, it analyses their contention (a) that individuals owe special obligations to fellow-nationals, (b) that these obligations are obligations of Distributive Justice and (c) that these obligations are enforceable. Miller and Tamir's justifications, I argue, do not support these claims. Moreover, I argue, (a) and (c) should only be accepted in a greatly qualified form and (b) should be rejected altogether. The paper thus concludes that the nationalists' preferred account of Distributive Justice is untenable.
Wilfried Hinsch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Global Distributive Justice
Metaphilosophy, 2001Co-Authors: Wilfried HinschAbstract:The paper discusses the problem of global Distributive Justice. It proposes to distinguish between principles for the domestic and for the global or intersocietal distribution of wealth. It is argued that there may be a plurality of partly diverging domestic conceptions of Distributive Justice, not all of which need to be liberal egalitarian conceptions. It is maintained, however, that principles regulating the intersocietal distribution of wealth have to be egalitarian principles. This claim is defended against Rawls's argument in The Law of Peoples that egalitarian principles of Distributive Justice should not be applied globally. Moreover, it is explained in detail, why Rawls's “duty of assistance to burdened societies” cannot be an appropriate substitute for a global principle of Distributive Justice.
Kyle Mclean - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Revisiting the role of Distributive Justice in Tyler’s legitimacy theory
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2019Co-Authors: Kyle McleanAbstract:ObjectivesTyler’s theory of legitimacy identified procedural Justice and Distributive Justice as antecedents of legitimacy, but placed Distributive Justice in a relatively minor position compared with procedural Justice. This has led to researchers paying less attention to Distributive Justice in the development of theory, despite consistent findings that Distributive Justice is important to a number of outcomes for criminal Justice authorities. This report uses uncertainty management theory to revisit Tyler’s legitimacy model and gain a more nuanced understanding of Distributive Justice.MethodsThe proposed model is tested using a series of latent variable analyses conducted on a sample of 2169 adults and a factorial vignette design. The vignette design randomly manipulates outcome favorability and officer behavior during a hypothetical traffic stop. Multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) models are then utilized to test the impact of these manipulations on perceptions of procedural Justice and Distributive Justice. This is followed by a structural equation model that tests the relationships between procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, and legitimacy.ResultsOfficer behavior is a primary predictor of both procedural Justice and Distributive Justice. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that Distributive Justice judgments are shaped by perceptions of procedural Justice. Accordingly, Distributive Justice mediates the relationship between procedural Justice and legitimacy.ConclusionsDistributive Justice should not be treated as a competing explanation for legitimacy evaluations, but as a concept that contextualizes why procedural Justice is important.
-
Revisiting the role of Distributive Justice in Tyler’s legitimacy theory
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2019Co-Authors: Kyle McleanAbstract:Tyler’s theory of legitimacy identified procedural Justice and Distributive Justice as antecedents of legitimacy, but placed Distributive Justice in a relatively minor position compared with procedural Justice. This has led to researchers paying less attention to Distributive Justice in the development of theory, despite consistent findings that Distributive Justice is important to a number of outcomes for criminal Justice authorities. This report uses uncertainty management theory to revisit Tyler’s legitimacy model and gain a more nuanced understanding of Distributive Justice. The proposed model is tested using a series of latent variable analyses conducted on a sample of 2169 adults and a factorial vignette design. The vignette design randomly manipulates outcome favorability and officer behavior during a hypothetical traffic stop. Multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) models are then utilized to test the impact of these manipulations on perceptions of procedural Justice and Distributive Justice. This is followed by a structural equation model that tests the relationships between procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, and legitimacy. Officer behavior is a primary predictor of both procedural Justice and Distributive Justice. Furthermore, the results demonstrate that Distributive Justice judgments are shaped by perceptions of procedural Justice. Accordingly, Distributive Justice mediates the relationship between procedural Justice and legitimacy. Distributive Justice should not be treated as a competing explanation for legitimacy evaluations, but as a concept that contextualizes why procedural Justice is important.
Mathias Risse - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Global Distributive Justice
Global Political Philosophy, 2012Co-Authors: Mathias RisseAbstract:A theory of Distributive Justice explains why certain individuals have particularly stringent claims to certain relative or absolute shares, quantities or amounts of something whose distribution over certain people must be justifiable to them. Alongside Distributive Justice there is also rectiflcatory Justice, and perhaps other kinds. Yet because our concern mostly is with Distributive Justice, Justice refers to Distributive Justice unless otherwise noted. Among moral prescriptions, it is the demands of Justice that are the hardest ones to overrule or suspend. Justice plays its central role in human affairs because it enables persons to present claims of such stringency. “We can’t leave it to insurance companies to deliver Justice,” South African writer J. M. Coetzee has the protagonist of his novel Disgrace say (2000, p 137). This is amusing precisely because of the stringency of Justice (which renders it rather obvious that, indeed, we cannot leave Justice to insurance companies). We speak about Justice in the family, at the workplace or in competitions. There is Justice as a personal virtue, a constitution of character or disposition to help ensure others have, or are, what they should have or be. Domestic Distributive Justice is also called “social Justice.”
Robert Kolb - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Risk Management and Risk Transfer: Distributive Justice in Finance
The Journal of Alternative Investments, 2011Co-Authors: Robert KolbAbstract:Questions of Distributive Justice in risk management arise with varying intensity in different market settings. This article argues that perfect financial markets provide a context in which questions of Distributive Justice are seldom salient. In such markets, all traders have access to the same information about the item being traded, and traders are generally anonymous. For the most part, the author argues, these conditions justify ignoring questions of Distributive Justice. In imperfect markets, managing risk becomes relevant to Distributive Justice. Differential information between trading parties can quickly lead to a situation in which one party exploits another, particularly when the advantageous information is gained via a privileged position or illegitimate means. As the degree of market imperfections increases, so does the importance of considerations of Distributive Justice. In nonfinancial markets generally, and in labor markets particularly, a firm’s efforts to manage risk often affect others in ways that may be unjust. Finally, firms’ risk management activities can create risks for parties far beyond those who actually manage the risk or participate in the risk management process. These affected parties can even include the public at large.
-
Risk Management and Distributive Justice
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2009Co-Authors: Robert KolbAbstract:This paper surveys the relationship between risk management, particularly financial risk management, and questions of Distributive Justice. Risk management proceeds by mitigation or transfer. When risk is transferred, questions of Distributive Justice are often relevant, but they are seldom addressed or even acknowledged by risk managers. Questions of Distributive Justice in risk management arise with varying intensity in different market settings. This paper argues that perfect financial markets provide a context in which questions of Distributive Justice are seldom salient. In such markets, all traders have access to the same information about the item being traded and traders are generally anonymous. For the most part, I argue, these conditions justify ignoring questions of Distributive Justice. In imperfect markets, managing risk becomes relevant to Distributive Justice. Differential information between trading parties can quickly lead to a situation in which one party exploits another, particularly when the advantageous information is gained by some privileged position or by some illegitimate means. As the degree of market imperfections increases, so does the importance of considerations of Distributive Justice. In non-financial markets generally, and in labor markets particularly, the firm’s efforts to manage risk often affect others in ways that may be unjust. Finally, the risk management activities of firms can create risks for parties far beyond those who actually manage the risk or participate in the risk management process. These affected parties can even include the public at large.
