The difference content of the idea of fair distribution, the equity theory of distributive justice

The fairness of social distribution is affected by many factors:

First, Marx believed that the ownership of the means of production is the fundamental factor that determines distribution. He attributed the root cause of the serious injustice in the distribution of capitalist society to the capitalist private ownership of the means of production, and believed that the only way for the proletariat to change its economic destiny was to overthrow capitalist private ownership and establish socialist public ownership.

Second, free market competition, the result of which is a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. All kinds of market competition are driven by interests, and the resources they have are dependent. This is known as the spontaneity of market regulation.

Third, national systems and policies have a huge impact on distributive equity. In modern society, the distribution of national income is adjusted by laws and systems, and the unfairness of systems, laws, and policies is reflected in the distribution of income, which will lead to unfair distribution. Therefore, the fairness of the system, law, and policy will directly determine the fairness of distribution.

Fourth, the impact of labor differentials among workers. The difference between simple labor and complex labor, and between physical labor and mental labor, is manifested in the fact that there is a great distance between the contribution of value, and if income distribution is carried out only by the size of the contribution, it will inevitably cause a huge income disparity.

Equity theory, also known as social comparison theory, was proposed by American psychologist John Stacey Adams in 1965: the degree of motivation of employees is based on the subjective comparative perception of the proportion of remuneration and input between themselves and the referents.

This theory is a kind of motivation theory that studies the relationship between human motivation and perception, and is covered in Adams's "The Relationship between Workers' Inner Conflict about Wage Inequality and Their Productivity" (1962, co-authored with Rosenbaum), "The Impact of Wage Injustice on Work Quality" (1964, co-authored with Jacobson), "Unfairness in Social Exchange" (1965), etc., focusing on the study of the rationality and fairness of wage and remuneration distribution and its impact on employees' motivation for production. Its basic content includes three aspects: The theory of fairness holds that whether people can be motivated is determined not only by what they get, but also by whether what they get and what others get is fair.

The psychological basis for this theory is that human perception has a great influence on human motivation. They point out that a person is concerned not only with what he gains and loses, but also with what he or she gains and loses with others. They measure their gains and losses in terms of relative effort and relative reward.

If the ratio of gains and losses is roughly the same as that of others, they will feel calm, feel fair, reasonable, and feel comfortable. Being taller than others excites them and is the most effective motivator, but sometimes being too high can lead to a weak heart, insecurity, and gratitude. When you are lower than others, you will feel insecure, mentally unsettled, and even full of resentment, and you will not work hard and be passive and slacking off.

Therefore, rationality of distribution is often the factor and motivation that motivates people to work in an organization. The model (i.e., the equation) of the fairness theory: qp ip=qo io

In the formula, QP represents a person's feeling about what he is being paid for. IP represents the feeling that a person is invested in what he does. Qo represents the person's feeling about how much they are being paid for a comparator.

IO represents the person's sense of investment in the comparator. When people feel unfair, they will feel distressed and nervous, leading to a decrease in motivation for behavior, a decrease in work efficiency, and even rebellious behavior. In order to dispel uneasiness, individuals typically exhibit the following behavioral measures:

Achieve self-comfort through self-explanation, psychologically create an illusion of fairness, and eliminate uneasiness; Replace the object of comparison in order to obtain subjective fairness; Take certain behaviors to change your own or others' gains and losses; vent grievances and create contradictions; Endure or escape for a while.

The determination of fairness is influenced by the individual's knowledge and cultivation, and even the external atmosphere can only play its role through the change of the individual's worldview and values.

According to Adams (1965), when employees find that the organization is unjust, there are six main reactions: change their inputs; change your income; distort one's perception of oneself; distort perceptions of others; change the reference object; Change your current job.

Distributive equity is a complex social topic. As the saying goes, the people have a scale in their hearts. So, what should this scale be?

1. The distribution of individual consumer goods under the socialist system should follow the principle of people-oriented and common prosperity;

2. Under the socialist system, the distribution of individual consumer goods should follow the principle of optimal distribution; In any country, at any time, the national income is a given quantity, and whether the distribution of individual consumer goods in the national income is fair does not depend on the size of its quantity, but on whether its distribution is optimized.

3. Under the socialist system, the distribution of individual consumer goods should follow the principle of fairness and efficiency.

The relationship between efficiency and fairness.

The current situation in China is that it is neither efficient nor equitable. I think it is debatable that the argument that unfair distribution is attributed to efficiency as a priority.

First of all, China's unfair distribution is not caused by efficiency priorities, because China's efficiency is not high. Although the distribution gap in our country has widened, it has not brought about high efficiency, and this situation is universally recognized. It is more accurate to say that efficiency priority causes unfair distribution, which may be applicable in other countries, but it is different in China, it is better to say that the pursuit of political performance causes unfair distribution, or the old system reform is not in place to cause unfair distribution.

Second, high efficiency does not mean that the Gini coefficient expands, and some developed countries have higher efficiency than China, but the Gini coefficient is lower than China's, indicating that high efficiency does not necessarily bring about unfair distribution.

Thirdly, countries with a lower Gini coefficient do not mean that they are distributively equitable, and some statistics show that the wealth and poverty in these countries are widening.

Finally, it is also worth studying whether China's indicators for calculating the Gini coefficient are scientific and reasonable, for example, the income of farmers is overestimated by taking into account the income of chickens, ducks, trees, and even seeds used for reproduction. In the city, if the operating capital and bank deposits of private entrepreneurs are also included in their personal income (for example, when I went to Changsha Yuanda Company two years ago to conduct research, the company said that it would deposit 500 million yuan in the bank as a reserve fund all year round), it will also increase the income of urban residents. At present, private capital has contributed nearly 60% to GDP, and the amount of operating capital is considerable, and most of them are concentrated in large cities.

In addition, there are some people in the city whose income is not counted, such as some legitimate income in addition to salary income, such as housing, some special treatment, etc., so the income gap may expand.

It can be seen from the above that fairness is related to efficiency, and widening the income gap can stimulate the improvement of efficiency, but some situations are not exactly the same, China has paid the price of widening the income gap, and has not obtained the return of high efficiency, which shows that China's unfair distribution can not be solved by the formula of development economics, and the cause of unfair distribution is attributed to the priority of efficiency, which is a bit out of touch with China's reality, and some copies of Western economics.

The importance of fairness is doing our best to emphasize the role of fairness, increase the importance of fairness, pay special attention to the fairness of secondary distribution, which is emphasized many times, the relationship between fairness and efficiency in the present to slowly adjust, can not be achieved overnight, we see that our ** is working hard, I believe that in the near future the injustice of social distribution will gradually reduce and eventually disappear.

It's going to wait until communism.