实现大流行后的经济均等:通过分配公正实现潜在恢复

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Aswathy Madhukumar
{"title":"实现大流行后的经济均等:通过分配公正实现潜在恢复","authors":"Aswathy Madhukumar","doi":"10.1515/ldr-2024-0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the economic disparities created and augmented by the Pandemic and implores the state to adopt redistribution schemes based on the philosophy of distributive justice. The pandemic created and augmented gaping class inequalities, by pushing some into unemployment and poverty, while catalysing others’ prosperity. This may or may not have involved a fault element on the part of those that profited from the pandemic, which is to say, while some may have actively exploited the situation to increase their profits at the cost of general interests, others may have simply gained profits while retaining ethical practices in their conduct of business. This Paper argues that, irrespective of the fault element, States must implement a special financial scheme that necessitates companies that gained enormous profits from the pandemic to contribute towards assisting those who were financially crushed by the pandemic. The paper will build this on the philosophy of distributive justice, examining the ‘difference principle’ as well as ‘luck and responsibility egalitarianism’. Simply put, this means that States must enforce a system that neutralizes the ‘luck’ element that the pandemic induced in the society, through a financial scheme best suited for its situation. This may be achieved through levying a special tax for a period of time on particular business entities and/or by requiring companies to include a special corporate social responsibility project in line with the quantum of additional profits owing to the pandemic. Arguably, corporate houses that exploited the pandemic must not be placed at par with those that merely happened to profit from it (say, for instance, a pharmaceutical company that may have manipulated the drug market to increase prices and limit supply of an important drug, as opposed to a food/essentials delivery chain that naturally saw an increase in the number of consumers ordering deliveries online). But the obligation to carve out a part of their profits for social redistribution is not founded on whether they are at fault or not. Any fault may, of course, be used as a basis for levying a higher penalty or other legal measure, apart and distinct from the obligation that this paper builds on. The scheme that is proposed by the Paper is not to penalize but is based on the philosophy of distributive justice and thus does not require that the company was ever in violation of laws, but merely that the pandemic that devastated most people happened to be a profitable enterprise for others in contrast. It is in the State’s interests to negate the widened gap of economic disparities thus created, and this justifies that the Government would require such corporate houses to carve out a fraction of their fortunes for those who suffered severely. The Paper builds primarily on the philosophical foundations of distributive justice, urging its practical implementation in post-pandemic the economy. States must adopt creative measures to restructure patterns of privileges created or amplified by such unprecedented (at least in recent history) circumstances, as the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":43146,"journal":{"name":"Law and Development Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementing Post-Pandemic Economic Parity: A Potential Restoration Through Distributive Justice\",\"authors\":\"Aswathy Madhukumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ldr-2024-0037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper explores the economic disparities created and augmented by the Pandemic and implores the state to adopt redistribution schemes based on the philosophy of distributive justice. The pandemic created and augmented gaping class inequalities, by pushing some into unemployment and poverty, while catalysing others’ prosperity. This may or may not have involved a fault element on the part of those that profited from the pandemic, which is to say, while some may have actively exploited the situation to increase their profits at the cost of general interests, others may have simply gained profits while retaining ethical practices in their conduct of business. This Paper argues that, irrespective of the fault element, States must implement a special financial scheme that necessitates companies that gained enormous profits from the pandemic to contribute towards assisting those who were financially crushed by the pandemic. The paper will build this on the philosophy of distributive justice, examining the ‘difference principle’ as well as ‘luck and responsibility egalitarianism’. Simply put, this means that States must enforce a system that neutralizes the ‘luck’ element that the pandemic induced in the society, through a financial scheme best suited for its situation. This may be achieved through levying a special tax for a period of time on particular business entities and/or by requiring companies to include a special corporate social responsibility project in line with the quantum of additional profits owing to the pandemic. Arguably, corporate houses that exploited the pandemic must not be placed at par with those that merely happened to profit from it (say, for instance, a pharmaceutical company that may have manipulated the drug market to increase prices and limit supply of an important drug, as opposed to a food/essentials delivery chain that naturally saw an increase in the number of consumers ordering deliveries online). But the obligation to carve out a part of their profits for social redistribution is not founded on whether they are at fault or not. Any fault may, of course, be used as a basis for levying a higher penalty or other legal measure, apart and distinct from the obligation that this paper builds on. The scheme that is proposed by the Paper is not to penalize but is based on the philosophy of distributive justice and thus does not require that the company was ever in violation of laws, but merely that the pandemic that devastated most people happened to be a profitable enterprise for others in contrast. It is in the State’s interests to negate the widened gap of economic disparities thus created, and this justifies that the Government would require such corporate houses to carve out a fraction of their fortunes for those who suffered severely. The Paper builds primarily on the philosophical foundations of distributive justice, urging its practical implementation in post-pandemic the economy. States must adopt creative measures to restructure patterns of privileges created or amplified by such unprecedented (at least in recent history) circumstances, as the pandemic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Development Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Development Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2024-0037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Development Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2024-0037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了大流行病造成和加剧的经济差距,并恳求国家采取基于分配正义理念的再分配计划。大流行病造成并加剧了巨大的阶级不平等,将一些人推向失业和贫困,同时促进了另一些人的繁荣。这可能涉及也可能不涉及那些从大流行病中获利的人的过错因素,也就是说,虽然有些人可能积极利用这种情况,以牺牲普遍利益为代价来增加利润,但其他人可能只是在获得利润的同时,在其商业行为中保留了道德规范。本文认为,无论过错因素如何,各国都必须实施一项特殊的财政计划,要求从大流行病中获得巨额利润的公司为那些在经济上被大流行病击垮的人提供帮助。本文将以分配正义哲学为基础,研究 "差异原则 "和 "运气与责任平均主义"。简而言之,这意味着各国必须通过最适合本国国情的财政计划,实施一种制度来中和大流行病在社会中引发的 "运气 "因素。这可以通过在一段时间内对特定商业实体征收特别税和/或要求公司根据因大流行病而增加的利润额纳入一个特别的企业社会责任项目来实现。可以说,利用疫情的企业不能与那些只是碰巧从疫情中获利的企业相提并论(例如,一家制药公司可能操纵了药品市场,以提高价格并限制一种重要药品的供应,而一家食品/必需品配送连锁店则自然而然地看到网上订货的消费者数量增加)。但是,从利润中拿出一部分用于社会再分配的义务,并不是建立在他们是否有过错的基础上。当然,任何过错都可以作为征收更高的罚款或采取其他法律措施的依据,这与本文所依据的义务是截然不同的。本文提出的方案不是惩罚,而是基于分配正义的理念,因此并不要求公司曾经违法,而只是要求对大多数人造成毁灭性打击的大流行病恰好是对其他人有利可图的企业。消除由此造成的经济差距是符合国家利益的,因此政府有理由要求这些公司将其财富的一部分分给那些遭受严重损失的人。本文主要基于分配正义的哲学基础,敦促在大流行病后的经济中切实落实分配正义。各国必须采取创造性措施,调整因大流行病这种前所未有(至少是近代史上前所未有)的情况而产生或扩大的特权模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Implementing Post-Pandemic Economic Parity: A Potential Restoration Through Distributive Justice
This paper explores the economic disparities created and augmented by the Pandemic and implores the state to adopt redistribution schemes based on the philosophy of distributive justice. The pandemic created and augmented gaping class inequalities, by pushing some into unemployment and poverty, while catalysing others’ prosperity. This may or may not have involved a fault element on the part of those that profited from the pandemic, which is to say, while some may have actively exploited the situation to increase their profits at the cost of general interests, others may have simply gained profits while retaining ethical practices in their conduct of business. This Paper argues that, irrespective of the fault element, States must implement a special financial scheme that necessitates companies that gained enormous profits from the pandemic to contribute towards assisting those who were financially crushed by the pandemic. The paper will build this on the philosophy of distributive justice, examining the ‘difference principle’ as well as ‘luck and responsibility egalitarianism’. Simply put, this means that States must enforce a system that neutralizes the ‘luck’ element that the pandemic induced in the society, through a financial scheme best suited for its situation. This may be achieved through levying a special tax for a period of time on particular business entities and/or by requiring companies to include a special corporate social responsibility project in line with the quantum of additional profits owing to the pandemic. Arguably, corporate houses that exploited the pandemic must not be placed at par with those that merely happened to profit from it (say, for instance, a pharmaceutical company that may have manipulated the drug market to increase prices and limit supply of an important drug, as opposed to a food/essentials delivery chain that naturally saw an increase in the number of consumers ordering deliveries online). But the obligation to carve out a part of their profits for social redistribution is not founded on whether they are at fault or not. Any fault may, of course, be used as a basis for levying a higher penalty or other legal measure, apart and distinct from the obligation that this paper builds on. The scheme that is proposed by the Paper is not to penalize but is based on the philosophy of distributive justice and thus does not require that the company was ever in violation of laws, but merely that the pandemic that devastated most people happened to be a profitable enterprise for others in contrast. It is in the State’s interests to negate the widened gap of economic disparities thus created, and this justifies that the Government would require such corporate houses to carve out a fraction of their fortunes for those who suffered severely. The Paper builds primarily on the philosophical foundations of distributive justice, urging its practical implementation in post-pandemic the economy. States must adopt creative measures to restructure patterns of privileges created or amplified by such unprecedented (at least in recent history) circumstances, as the pandemic.
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Law and Development Review (LDR) is a top peer-reviewed journal in the field of law and development which explores the impact of law, legal frameworks, and institutions (LFIs) on development. LDR is distinguished from other law and economics journals in that its primary focus is the development aspects of international and domestic legal orders. The journal promotes global exchanges of views on law and development issues. LDR facilitates future global negotiations concerning the economic development of developing countries and sets out future directions for law and development studies. Many of the top scholars and practitioners in the field, including Professors David Trubek, Bhupinder Chimni, Michael Trebilcock, and Mitsuo Matsushita, have edited LDR issues and published articles in LDR. The journal seeks top-quality articles on law and development issues broadly, from the developing world as well as from the developed world. The changing economic conditions in recent decades render the law and development approach applicable to economic issues in developed countries as well as developing ones, and LDR accepts manuscripts on law and economic development issues concerning both categories of countries. LDR’s editorial board includes top scholars and professionals with diverse regional and academic backgrounds.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信