What's Fair in Foul Weather and Fair? Distributive Justice across Different Allocation Contexts and Goods

Abstract

The Gulf coast hurricanes of a few years ago vividly highlighted important questions concerning the fair distribution of resources that are of continual concern in the more mundane distributive policies of the modern state. We present an experimental study of allocation decisions across two allocation contexts-nonemergency and emergency (flood) conditions-and with regard to qualitatively different goods-money, prescription medicine, and food. Distributive behavior is likely to vary across context and good depending on how individuals weigh distinct and competing allocation principles-merit, need, and equality herein different circumstances. We find that allocation behavior is complex but structured, with context and good having predictable effects on the allocation strategies individuals employ. Although we find that individuals overall tend to weigh certain allocation principles more heavily in certain contexts and with regard to certain goods (e.g., emphasizing need in an emergency context or with regard to prescription medicine), we also find that they do not behave in a lockstep fashion and that they still employ a variety of allocation strategies, even in nonobvious ways, in every condition. Our study makes both a theoretical and an empirical contribution to our understanding of allocation behavior and distributive justice with implications for understanding the distributive decisions of policy makers as well as citizens' views of the fairness and legitimacy of policies.

Justice, Conflict and Wellbeing

“…Individuals rely on, and make trade-offs among, multiple justice principles simultaneously (Leventhal et al 1980;Matania and Yaniv 2007;Michelbach et al 2003;Mitchell et al 1993;Ordóñez and Mellers 1993;Scott et al 2001;Skitka and Tetlock 1992). Which principle is paramount at any given time varies depending on a number of individual, situational, and resource factors (e.g., Frohlich and Oppenheimer 1992;Michelbach et al 2003;Mitchell et al 1993;Sabbagh 2003;Sabbagh et al 1994;Scott and Bornstein 2009;Scott et al 2001;Skitka and Tetlock 1992), reflecting what Walzer (1983) refers to as "spheres of justice. "…”

“…For example, many allocation programs explicitly consider recipients' need, as when welfare workers consider income and number of children in distributing food stamps and other forms of aid, or when health-care officials consider current health status when deciding who should receive an organ transplant. The principle of need is especially likely to take precedence over other principles when a particular resource is scarce, or when an emergency exists (Scott and Bornstein 2009;Skitka and Tetlock 1992).…”

“…For example, Scott and Bornstein (2009) found that when making (hypothetical) resource allocations, participants relied more on the principle of merit than on need or equality when allocating money; but the principle of need was emphasized when the good was prescription medications. Justice judgments and behavior also vary as a function of whether one is distributing a good or a "bad," such as business costs (Gamliel and Peer 2006;Sabbagh and Schmidt 1998;van Dijk et al 1999), and whether the allocation is public or private (Major and Adams 1983).…”

“…Methodological Considerations Many studies examining principles of distributive justice use hypothetical situations to determine which justice principles individuals prefer in resource allocation (e.g., Frohlich and Oppenheimer 1992;Gamliel and Peer 2006;Mitchell et al 1993;Scott and Bornstein 2009;Scott et al 2001). In these studies, participants are given a scenario, and asked either to distribute a given good fairly or to evaluate different possible allocations.…”

“…And within the public arena, notions of fairness inform governmental allocations of health care (e.g., Koch 2001); educational (e.g., Sabbagh et al 2006) and environmental resources (e.g., Macias 2008); emergency relief (e.g., Scott and Bornstein 2009); tax burdens (Kinsey et al 1991;Paul et al 2006); foreign aid (Roper and Barria 2007); welfare benefits (Marmor et al 1990); and other government policies and services (see generally Elster 1993;Kluegel et al 1995;Tyler et al 1997).…”