IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/kyklos/v44y1991i3p325-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interindividual Differences in Opinions about Distributive Justice

Author

Listed:
  • Schokkaert, Erik
  • Capeau, Bart

Abstract

This paper provides some results of an empirical inquiry into the opinions on distributive justice with a representative sample of the Flemish working population. Earlier results, obtained with samples of students, are shown to be robust. Effort is the dominant criterion in opinions about justice in a production context. Profits and losses are treated asymmetrically. A logit analysis reveals that the choice of criteria of justice is influenced by the self-interest of the respondents. However, ethical criteria like the tendency to redistribute income cannot be neglected. Copyright 1991 by WWZ and Helbing & Lichtenhahn Verlag AG

Suggested Citation

  • Schokkaert, Erik & Capeau, Bart, 1991. "Interindividual Differences in Opinions about Distributive Justice," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 325-345.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:kyklos:v:44:y:1991:i:3:p:325-45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erik Schokkaert & Kurt Devooght, 2003. "Responsibility-sensitive fair compensation in different cultures," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(2), pages 207-242, October.
    2. Cettolin, E. & Riedl, A.M., 2013. "Justice under uncertainty," Research Memorandum 036, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    3. İbrahim Erdem SEÇİLMİŞ, 2014. "Seniority: A Blessing or A Curse? The Effect of Economics Training on the Perception of Distributive Justice," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society, issue 22(22).
    4. Tausch, Franziska & Potters, Jan & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Preferences for redistribution and pensions. What can we learn from experiments?," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(03), pages 298-325, July.
    5. James Konow, 2009. "Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 101-127, June.
    6. Christine Le CLAINCHE & Jerome WITTWER, 2012. "Risky Behaviours and Responsibility-Sensitive Fairness in a Non Life-Threatening Health Case: A European Study," Working Papers 12-18, LAMETA, Universitiy of Montpellier, revised Jun 2012.
    7. Andre Decoster & Erik Schokkaert, 2002. "The choice of inequality measure in empirical research on distributive judgements," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 197-222, December.
    8. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    9. John E. Roemer & Alain Trannoy, 2013. "Equality of Opportunity," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1921, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. Nataliya Kusa, 2018. "Should intra-familial time transfers be compensated financially?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201802, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    11. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2006. "Dividing Justly in Bargaining Problems with Claims," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 571-594, December.
    12. Claudia M. Buch & Christoph Engel, 2012. "The Tradeoff Between Redistribution and Effort: Evidence from the Field and from the Lab," CESifo Working Paper Series 3808, CESifo Group Munich.
    13. Stefan Traub & Christian Seidl & Ulrich Schmidt & Maria Levati, 2005. "Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding – or somebody else? An experimental investigation of distributive justice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(2), pages 283-309, April.
    14. Giménez Gómez, José M. (José Manuel) & Blanco Gil, Carmen & Sánchez García, Juan Francisco, 2016. "New insights on empirical conflicting claims problems," Working Papers 2072/261530, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    15. Gaertner, Wulf & Jungeilges, Jochen, 1999. "Evaluation via extended orderings: empirical findings from west and east," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6583, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. repec:bla:kyklos:v:70:y:2017:i:3:p:381-401 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Claudia M. Buch & Christoph Engel, 2012. "Effort and Redistribution: Better Cousins Than One Might Have Thought," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2012_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Sep 2014.
    18. Anke Gerber & Andreas Nicklisch & Stefan Voigt, 2013. "Strategic Choices for Redistribution and the Veil of Ignorance: Theory and Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 4423, CESifo Group Munich.
    19. David Chavanne & Kevin A. McCabe & Maria Pia Paganelli, 2015. "Are Self-Made Men Made Equally? An Experimental Test of Impartial Redistribution and Perceptions of Self-Determination," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 40, pages 1-3.
    20. Traub, Stefan & Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich & Levati, Maria Vittoria, 2003. "Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding - or Somebody Else?," Economics Working Papers 2003-03, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:kyklos:v:44:y:1991:i:3:p:325-45. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0023-5962 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.