This paper addresses two important questions regarding distributive justice. First we ask whether people use standards or principles of distributive justice regarding the allocation of income. The study confirms our expectation that there are at least two principles, viz., the merit and the need principle. Our data show that there is no generally held consensus about the applicability of these two principles. Second, we looked for explanations to explain variations in adherence to these principles. The literature suggests five different theses: 1. self-interest; 2. ideology; 3. enlightenment; 4. historical shift; and 5. gender. Results provide qualified support for the Theses 1, 2 and 4. Class, ideology, and age affect the preferences for the principles of justice. Further elaboration suggests the data point to a specific version of the self-interest thesis, viz., the underdog thesis. Theses 3 and 5 are not confirmed. Implications of these findings are discussed.

, , , ,
doi.org/10.1007/BF02334712, hdl.handle.net/1765/60519
Social Justice Research
Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences

d' Anjou, L., Steijn, B., & van Aarsen, D. (1995). Social position, ideology, and distributive justice. Social Justice Research, 8(4), 351–384. doi:10.1007/BF02334712