Rawls's justice theory and its relations to the concept of merit goods

Ege, Ragıp; Igersheim, Herrade

doi:10.1080/09672567.2010.482999

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In his pathbreaking work "A Theory of Justice" (1971), Rawls attempts to obtain consensus about the meaning of justice by defining "Justice as Fairness" (McGowan 1990). Rawls establishes a conception of justice, based upon the theories of the social contract as postulated by Locke, Rousseau, and Kant (Konow 2003;Ege and Igersheim 2010), partly criticising the notion of Utilitarianism. In Rawls' theory, the concepts of equality and duty, including the duty to help the needy, are central elements of justice (Konow 2003).…”

Section: Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media Screening and Procedural Justice: Towards Fairer Use of Social Media in Selection

Vosen

2021

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Companies have started using social media for screening applicants in the selection process. Thereby, they enter a low-cost source of information on applicants, which potentially allows them to hire the right person on the job and avoid irresponsible employee behaviour and negligent hiring lawsuits. However, a number of ethical issues are associated with this practice, which give rise to the question of the fairness of social media screening. This article aims to provide an assessment of the procedural justice of social media screening and to articulate recommendations for a fairer use of social media in the selection process. To achieve this, a systematic literature review of research articles pertaining to social media screening has been conducted. Thereby, the benefits and ethical issues relating to social media screening, as well as recommendations for its use have been extracted and discussed against Leventhal’s (1980) rules of procedural justice. It turns out that without clear guidelines for recruiters, social media screening cannot be considered procedurally fair, as it opens up way too many opportunities for infringements on privacy, unfair discrimination, and adverse selection based on inaccurate information. However, it is possible to enhance the fairness of this practice by establishing clear policies and procedures to standardize the process.

show abstract

Section: Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media Screening and Procedural Justice: Towards Fairer Use of Social Media in Selection

Vosen

2021

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 2 According to economists, there are two main reasons for the under-supply of merit goods; Ege and Igersheim 2010. The first concern is that consumers tend to maximize short-term utility and underinvest in long-term benefits.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Goods and Social Justice

Kohn¹

2020

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why should the state provide public goods? I explore this question by focusing on the example of public parks. It examines the three most influential approaches to public goods (the market failures, the normative, and the democratic) and concludes that they fail to explain why parks should be public. I propose an alternative that I call solidarism, a social justice-based approach that provides a response to liberal arguments about the neutrality of the state. Solidarism emphasizes that modernity gives rise to growing levels of interdependence that generate benefits and burdens that are not shared fairly. Public goods as such are a way of compensating for the negative externalities of urbanization and industrialization. Left libertarians argue that such compensation should exclusively take the form of individual benefits. I challenge this view and provide three reasons for building public infrastructure that is shared among people who live together in a physical space: solidarity, decommodification, and politics. Exploring the publicness of parks provides a window into the broader question about the limits of the market and the importance of public space for democracy.

show abstract

“…In line with the political-economic dialectical debate, Musgrave (1959) introduced a new category of merit goods, defined as commodities that an individual or society "should have on the basis of needs", rather than ability or willingness to pay. Merit goods provide services which should apply universally to everyone in a particular situation, a view that Ege and Igersheim (2010) associates to the concept of primary goods found in Rawls (1971: 62) 35 . Examples include the provision of food stamps to support nutrition, the delivery of health services to improve 35 According to Rawls (1971), primary goods are those goods supposed to be desirable for every human being, just as they are also useful for them ("every rational man is presumed to want").…”

Section: B-the Normative Non-excludability Of Food: Between Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic Regards on Food as a Commons: Plurality of Schools, Genealogy of Meanings, Confusing Vocabularies

Pol

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commons and food are experiencing a revival in recent years and yet the links between both are almost absent in academic and political discourses. Commons are often portrayed as historical and yet innovative governing mechanisms that can challenge the State-Market hegemony. On the other side, food is both a relevant agent of change and a major driver of planetary destruction, being thus cause and solution to multiple crises that affect humankind. Departing from the commodification of food as one root cause of the broken global food system, this text firstly situates and discusses the different schools of thought (or epistemologies) that have addressed the private/public, commodity/commons nature of goods in general, and then explores how those schools have considered food in particular. To do so, the author has defined five epistemologies, four academic (economic, legal, historical and political) and one non-academic (grassroots activists). The analysis highlights how those epistemologies have yielded incommensurable understandings and conflicting vocabularies, hence creating confusion in the socio-political realm and even rejection around the idea of food being considered as a commons. The economic epistemic regard has reigned over the others by applying an approach to commons, public and private goods that is theoretical, reductionist and ontological instead of phenomenological, therefore preventing or obscuring other scholarly or practical understanding of commons. When applied to food, the iron law of economics dictated that food, a private good based on rivalry and excludability, shall be better allocated through market mechanisms with absolute proprietary rights and valued as a pure commodity. This reductionist view collides with the plurality of meanings of food in different societies, civilisations and historical periods, as other schools of thought indicate. The author uses diverse epistemic tools to re-construct food as a commons, based on its essentiality to human beings and societies and the customary and contemporary praxis to produce, consume and govern food collectively through non-market mechanisms for more than 2000 centuries. As commoning has instituting power to create different political and legal frameworks, if food is valued differently the entire architecture of the global food system would change, as the grassroots activist school claims. Re-commoning food defies the legal and political scaffoldings that sustain the hegemony of market and state decision-makers over eaters and food producers and informs sustainable forms of food production (agro-ecology), new collective practices of governance (food democracies) and alternative policies to regain control over the food system (food sovereignty). Food as a commons is an agent of change with transformative power, no matter what economists say.

show abstract

Rawls's justice theory and its relations to the concept of merit goods

Cited by 11 publications

References 22 publications

Social Media Screening and Procedural Justice: Towards Fairer Use of Social Media in Selection

Social Media Screening and Procedural Justice: Towards Fairer Use of Social Media in Selection

Public Goods and Social Justice

Epistemic Regards on Food as a Commons: Plurality of Schools, Genealogy of Meanings, Confusing Vocabularies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About