评估养老机构促进分配正义的能力:一个“自由主义”的概念框架

M. Mark, J. Dixon, G. Drover
{"title":"评估养老机构促进分配正义的能力:一个“自由主义”的概念框架","authors":"M. Mark, J. Dixon, G. Drover","doi":"10.2174/1874945300902010016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Much of the literature regarding distributive justice and pensions has focussed disproportionately on the material preconditions for social solidarity, particularly statutory measures that would narrow the scope of differentials in the distribution of income and wealth. While we are sympathetic towards this emphasis, we contend that justice is comprised of a range of distinctive normative principles. Drawing upon an appraisal of the principal arguments of two highly influential public philosophies, this article develops a \"liberal\" conceptual framework which specifies the normative foundations of appropriate pension scheme design. The core principles of justice are need, which legitimates the social minimum that is necessary to sustain an adequate standard of living for the least advantaged; desert, which provides a justification for allocating income in accordance with differentials in work participation prior to retirement; and equality, which provides a normative rationale for universal citizenship entitlements. Their corresponding programme design features may be used to assess, empirically, the degree to which the design of pension institutions is consistent with the requirements of distributive justice.","PeriodicalId":285033,"journal":{"name":"The Open Social Science Journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Capacity of Pension Institutions to Promote Distributive Justice: A \\\"Liberal\\\" Conceptual Framework\",\"authors\":\"M. Mark, J. Dixon, G. Drover\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1874945300902010016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Much of the literature regarding distributive justice and pensions has focussed disproportionately on the material preconditions for social solidarity, particularly statutory measures that would narrow the scope of differentials in the distribution of income and wealth. While we are sympathetic towards this emphasis, we contend that justice is comprised of a range of distinctive normative principles. Drawing upon an appraisal of the principal arguments of two highly influential public philosophies, this article develops a \\\"liberal\\\" conceptual framework which specifies the normative foundations of appropriate pension scheme design. The core principles of justice are need, which legitimates the social minimum that is necessary to sustain an adequate standard of living for the least advantaged; desert, which provides a justification for allocating income in accordance with differentials in work participation prior to retirement; and equality, which provides a normative rationale for universal citizenship entitlements. Their corresponding programme design features may be used to assess, empirically, the degree to which the design of pension institutions is consistent with the requirements of distributive justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":285033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Open Social Science Journal\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-02-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Open Social Science Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874945300902010016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Open Social Science Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874945300902010016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

关于分配正义和养恤金的许多文献不成比例地集中于社会团结的物质先决条件,特别是将缩小收入和财富分配差异范围的法定措施。虽然我们赞同这种强调,但我们认为正义是由一系列独特的规范性原则组成的。在对两种极具影响力的公共哲学的主要论点进行评估的基础上,本文发展了一个“自由”的概念框架,该框架规定了适当的养老金计划设计的规范基础。正义的核心原则是需要,它使最弱势群体维持适当生活水平所必需的社会最低限度合法化;沙漠,它为根据退休前工作参与的差异分配收入提供了理由;以及平等,这为普遍公民权利提供了规范的依据。它们相应的方案设计特征可以用来根据经验评估养恤金机构的设计在多大程度上符合分配正义的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the Capacity of Pension Institutions to Promote Distributive Justice: A "Liberal" Conceptual Framework
Much of the literature regarding distributive justice and pensions has focussed disproportionately on the material preconditions for social solidarity, particularly statutory measures that would narrow the scope of differentials in the distribution of income and wealth. While we are sympathetic towards this emphasis, we contend that justice is comprised of a range of distinctive normative principles. Drawing upon an appraisal of the principal arguments of two highly influential public philosophies, this article develops a "liberal" conceptual framework which specifies the normative foundations of appropriate pension scheme design. The core principles of justice are need, which legitimates the social minimum that is necessary to sustain an adequate standard of living for the least advantaged; desert, which provides a justification for allocating income in accordance with differentials in work participation prior to retirement; and equality, which provides a normative rationale for universal citizenship entitlements. Their corresponding programme design features may be used to assess, empirically, the degree to which the design of pension institutions is consistent with the requirements of distributive justice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信