Distributive Justice: From Steinhaus, Knaster, and Banach to Elster and Rawls - The Perspective of Sociological Game Theory

• Authors: Tom Burns , Ewa Roszkowska , Nora Machado des Johansson
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This article presents a relatively straightforward theoretical framework about distributive justice with applications. It draws on a few key concepts of Sociological Game Theory (SGT). SGT is presented briefly in section 2. Section 3 provides a spectrum of distributive cases concerning principles of equality, differentiation among recipients according to performance or contribution, status or authority, or need. Two general types of social organization of distributive judgment are distinguished and judgment procedures or algorithms are modeled in each type of social organization. Section 4 discusses briefly the larger moral landscapes of human judgment – how distribution may typically be combined with other value into consideration. The article suggests that Rawls, Elster, and Machado point in this direction. Finally, it is suggested that the SGT framework presented provides a useful point of departure to systematically link it and compare the Warsaw School of Fair Division, Rawls, and Elster, among others.

Keywords

EN

distributive justice; fair division; sociological game theory; adjudicated distribution; self-organized distribution; distributive procedures/algorithms

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 37
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 11-38

Dates

online

2014-08-08

Contributors

author

Tom Burns

• Woods Institute for Environment and Energy, Stanford University, California and Department of Sociology, University of Uppsala, Sweden

author

Ewa Roszkowska

• Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Bialystok, Poland

author

Nora Machado des Johansson

• Lisbon University Institute, Centre for Research and Studies of Sociology, Lisbon, Portugal

References

• Brams, S.J, Edelman, P.H., Fishburn, P.C. (2000). Paradoxes of Fair Division, ECONOMIC RESEARCH REPORTS C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics Department of Economics Faculty of Arts and Science, New York University.
• Brams, S.J, Taylor, A.D. (1995). An Envy-free Cake Division Protocol. American Mathematical Monthly, 102(1), 9–18.[Crossref]
• Brams, S.J, Taylor, A.D. (1996). Fair division: from cake-cutting to dispute resolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Buckley, W., Burns T.R., and Meeker D. (1974), Structural Resolutions of Collective Action Problems. Behavioral Science, Vol. 19, 277–297.
• Burns, T.R. (1990). Models of Social and Market Exchange: Toward a Sociological Theory of Games and Social Behavior. In: C. Calhoun, M. W. Meyer, and W. R. Scott (Eds.) Structures of Power and Constraints: Papers in Honor of Peter Blau. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Burns, T.R. (1994). Two Conceptions of Human Agency: Rational Choice Theory and the Social Theory of Action. In: P. Sztompka (Ed), Human Agency and the Reorientation of Social Theory. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.
• Burns, T. R., Caldas J.C., Roszkowska E. (2005). Generalized Game Theory's Contribution to Multi-agent Modelling: Addressing Problems of Social Regulatiion, Social Order, and Effective Security. In: B. Dunin-Keplicz, A. Jankowski, A. Skowron, M. Szczuka (Eds.), Monitoring, Security and Rescue Techniques in Multiagent Systems. Springer Verlag: Berlin/London.
• Burns, T.R, DeVille P. (1999). On Social Equilibria. Paper prepared for presentation at the International Economic Association's XIIth World Congress, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
• Burns, T.R., Flam, H. (1987). The Shaping of Social Organization: Social Rule System Theory with Applications London: Sage Publications.
• Burns, T.R., Gomolińska A. (1998). Modeling Social Game Systems by Rule Complexes. In: L. Polkowski, A. Skowron (Eds.), Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing. Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg.
• Burns, T. R., Gomolińska A. (2000). The Theory of Socially Embedded Games: The Mathematics of Social Relationships, Rule Complexes, and Action Modalities. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 34(4), 379–406.
• Burns, T.R. Gomolińska A. (2001). Socio-cognitive Mechanisms of Belief Change: Application of Generalized Game Theory to Belief Revision, Social Fabrication, and Self-fulfilling Prophesy. Cognitive Systems, 2(1), 39–54.
• Burns, T.R., Gomolińska A., Meeker L.D. (2001). The Theory of Socially Embedded Games: Applications and Extensions to Open and Closed Games. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 35(1), 1–32.
• Burns, T.R, Gomolińska, A., Meeker, L. D., De Ville P. (1998). The General Theory of Games: Rule Complexes, Action Modalities, and Transformation. Uppsala Theory Circle Report, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
• Burns, T.R., Roszkowska, E. (2004). Fuzzy Games and Equilibria: The Perspective of the General Theory of Games on Nash and Normative Equilibria, In: Pal S.K, Polkowski, L., Skowron A. (Eds.) Rough-Neural Computing. Techniques for Computing with Words. Springer-Verlag, 435–470.
• Burns, T.R., Roszkowska, E. (2005). Social Judgment In Multi-Agent Systems: The Perspective Of Generalized Game Theory. In: Ron Sun (Ed.), Cognition and Multi-agent Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Burns, T.R., Roszkowska E., (2006a). Economic and Social Equilibria: The Perspective of GGT. Optimum – Studia Ekonomiczne, 3(31), 16–45.
• Burns, T., Roszkowska, E. (2006b). Social Judgement in multi-agent systems: The Perspective of Generalized Game Theory. In: R. Sun(Ed.), Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction. From Modeling to Social Simulation, Cambridge University Press, 409–416.
• Burns, T.R., Roszkowska E. (2007). Multi-Value Decision-Making and Games: The Perspective of Generalized Game Theory on Social and Psychological Complexity, Contradiction, and Equilibrium. In: Y. Shi, (Ed.), Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Human Systems Management. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
• Chapman, B., (1998a). Law Games: Defeasible Rules and Revisable Rationality. Law and Philosophy, 17, 443–480.
• Chapman, B., (1998b). More Easily Done Than Said: Rules, Reasons and Rational Social Choice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 18, 293–329.[Crossref]
• Cook K.S. (1989). The Social Science Encyclopedia. London: Routledge.
• Dubins L.E., Spanier E.H. (1961). How to Cut a Cake Fairly. American Mathematical Monthly, 68(1), 1–17.[Crossref]
• Elster, J. (1992). Local Justice. New York: Russell Sage.
• Elster, J., (2006). Fairness and Norms. Social Research, 73(2), 365–376.
• Granovetter, M., (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.[Crossref]
• Gomolińska, A., (1999). Rule Complexes for Representing Social Actors and Interactions. Studies in Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, 3(16), 95–108.
• Gomolińska A., (2002). Derivability of Rules From Rule Complexes, Logic and Logical Philosophy, 10, 21–44.
• Gomolińska, A., (2004). Fundamental Mathematical Notions of the Theory of Socially Embedded Games: A Granular Computing Perspective. In: S.K. Pal, L. Polkowski, A. Skowron (Eds.) Rough-Neural Computing: Techniques for Computing with Words. Springer-Verlag: Berlin/London, 411–434.
• Gomolińska, A., (2005). Toward Rough Applicability of Rules. In: B. Dunin-Keplicz, A. Jankowski, A. Skowron, M. Szczuka (Eds.). Monitoring, Security, and Rescue Techniques in Multiagent Systems. Springer-Verlag: Berlin/London, 203–214.
• Hwang, C. L., Yoon K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
• Johnson, A.G. (2000). Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, Blackwell: London.
• Machado, N. (1998). Using the Bodies of the Dead: Legal, Ethical and Organizational Dimensions of Organ Transplantation. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishers.
• Sen, A., (1998). Social Choice and Freedom. Nobel Prize Lecture, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden, December 13, 1998.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.
• Schelling, T.C. (1963). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Steinhaus, H. (1948). The Problem of Fair Division. Econometrica, 16, 101–104.
• Steinhaus, H. (1960). Mathematical Snapshots. London: Oxford University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/slgr-2014-0015