IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/apjors/v2y2018i1d10.1007_s41685-018-0077-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjective value judgments of distributive justice and legal decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Mingli Zheng

    (University of Macau)

Abstract

Distributive justice is a fundamental issue in the legal decision-making. We use Savage’s framework to derive a representation of subjective value judgments of distributive justice from the coherence of the decision-maker’s preferences over income distributions. The representation function can incorporate, in a unified way, the widely held beliefs such as inequality aversion, desert, and egalitarianism. We illustrate the application of the justice representation functions in law and economics by studying the distribution rules for different beliefs of distributive justice.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingli Zheng, 2018. "Subjective value judgments of distributive justice and legal decision-making," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 177-194, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:apjors:v:2:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s41685-018-0077-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s41685-018-0077-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41685-018-0077-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41685-018-0077-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Barrett & Anne Petron-Brunel & Maurice Salles, 2004. "A new approach to rights in social choice theory which incorporates utilitarianism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(1), pages 17-28, February.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1989. "Expectation and Variation in Multi-period Decisions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 1153-1169, September.
    3. Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2004. "Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 857-869, September.
    4. Konow, James, 2001. "Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 137-164, October.
    5. Mitra, Tapan & Ok, Efe A, 1996. "Personal Income Taxation and the Principle of Equal Sacrifice Revisited," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 37(4), pages 925-948, November.
    6. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2013. "Where do preferences come from?," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(3), pages 613-637, August.
    7. Mingli Zheng & Sajid Anwar, 2005. "Rational Legal Decision-Making, Value Judgment, and Efficient Precaution in Tort Law," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(3), pages 411-427, September.
    8. Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri Drange Hole & Erik Ø Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2007. "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 818-827, June.
    9. Young, H Peyton, 1990. "Progressive Taxation and Equal Sacrifice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 253-266, March.
    10. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    11. Fleurbaey, Marc, 2012. "Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199653591.
    12. Sen, Amartya K, 1977. "On Weights and Measures: Informational Constraints in Social Welfare Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1539-1572, October.
    13. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1992. "Additive Representation of Non-Additive Measures and the Choquet Integral," Discussion Papers 985, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    14. John C. Harsanyi, 1953. "Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(5), pages 434-434.
    15. Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2007. "Help the Low Skilled or Let the Hardworking Thrive? A Study of Fairness in Optimal Income Taxation," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(3), pages 467-500, June.
    16. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2013. "Where do preferences come from? A summary," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00978022, HAL.
    17. Aumann, Robert J & Kurz, Mordecai, 1977. "Power and Taxes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(5), pages 1137-1161, July.
    18. Mohammed Sharif, 2003. "A behavioural analysis of the subsistence standard of living," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 27(2), pages 191-207, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Moriki Hosoe, 2018. "Special issue (part II) on economic analysis of law, politics, and regions," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 79-82, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weinzierl, Matthew, 2014. "The promise of positive optimal taxation: normative diversity and a role for equal sacrifice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 128-142.
    2. Mingli Zheng, 2014. "Lobbying for wealth redistribution by changing the social planner’s preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 26(1), pages 79-92, January.
    3. Matthew C. Weinzierl, 2012. "Why do we Redistribute so Much but Tag so Little? The principle of equal sacrifice and optimal taxation," NBER Working Papers 18045, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes, 2021. "Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 679-711, May.
    5. Cetre, Sophie & Lobeck, Max & Senik, Claudia & Verdier, Thierry, 2019. "Preferences over income distribution: Evidence from a choice experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2010. "Is the veil of ignorance only a concept about risk? An experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 1062-1066, December.
    7. Francesco Farina & Stefania Ottone & Ferruccio Ponzano, 2019. "On the Collective Choice among Models of Social Protection: An Experimental Study," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, October.
    8. De Waegenaere, Anja & Wakker, Peter P., 2001. "Nonmonotonic Choquet integrals," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 45-60, September.
    9. Henry de Frahan, Lancelot & Maniquet, François, 2021. "Preference responsibility versus poverty reduction in the taxation of labor incomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    10. Ingvild Almås & Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden, 2020. "Cutthroat Capitalism versus Cuddly Socialism: Are Americans More Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking than Scandinavians?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1753-1788.
    11. Karagozoglu, Emin & Riedl, Arno, 2010. "Information, Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," IZA Discussion Papers 5079, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Tymon Słoczyński, 2012. "Zastosowanie zasady równych ofiar do oceny sprawiedliwości taryfy podatku dochodowego od osób fizycznych (PIT) w Polsce," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 10, pages 23-47.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:932-949 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Clément, Valérie & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Rulleau, Bénédicte, 2015. "Perceptions on equity and responsibility in coastal zone policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 284-291.
    15. Dorin, Camille & Hainguerlot, Marine & Huber-Yahi, Hélène & Vergnaud, Jean-Christophe & de Gardelle, Vincent, 2021. "How economic success shapes redistribution: The role of self-serving beliefs, in-group bias and justice principles," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 932-949, July.
    16. Akbaş, Merve & Ariely, Dan & Yuksel, Sevgi, 2019. "When is inequality fair? An experiment on the effect of procedural justice and agency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 114-127.
    17. John E. Roemer & Alain Trannoy, 2013. "Equality of Opportunity," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1921, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    18. Nadja Dwenger & Ingrid Hoem Sjursen & Jasmin Vietz, 2024. "What Is Fair? Experimental Evidence on Fair Equality vs Fair Inequality," CESifo Working Paper Series 11289, CESifo.
    19. Mollerstrom, Johanna & Reme, Bjørn-Atle & Sørensen, Erik Ø., 2015. "Luck, choice and responsibility — An experimental study of fairness views," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-40.
    20. Lea S. Svenningsen & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Preferences for Distributional Impacts of Climate Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 1-24, January.
    21. Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2016. "Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights for Optimal Tax Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(1), pages 24-45, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Distributive justice; Deservedness; Savage axioms; Taxation; Contract;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • H20 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - General
    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)

    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:spr:apjors:v:2:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s41685-018-0077-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.