Social justice and equality. Social differentiation and state redistribution of income
We continue to publish a course of lectures on the fundamentals of politics and methodology for the formation of the party program of the Party of a new type, compiled as a mandatory party minimum of knowledge for a member of the PNT.
Today is the tenth session. Topic: "Justice and social justice". Last time there was a topic: "The country's macro balance" - who consumes the benefits created by the country's labor. You see that each lesson continues or grows from the previous ones and gives rise to a new corridor for the development of relevant thoughts that advance us in understanding important topics. It is clear that the topics of macrobalance, the distribution of wealth and justice are, of course, related, but it is just as clear that there is no need to talk about this, unless we have in mind their implementation in real life. Therefore, the next topic will be devoted to the theme of the state structure, embodying the discussed principles and ideas.
Today's topic - "Justice and social justice" - is very interesting from the point of view of methodology, entering the ability to understand the meanings and essence of far from simple things.
As educational literature, I refer to our work.
DISEASE OF DEFINITIONS
It would seem, who does not understand what justice is? But in fact, this is the most complex concept, one of the most important, aggregating the high meanings of the life of a person and his communities - everything that we have understood so far.
What is justice? What is social justice? How do they differ from each other? How can justice be realized in the life of a person, society and in the activities of the state?
I, unfortunately, cannot recommend the well-known literature to you. You can find it yourself if you want. I cannot recommend it for one reason - as a person who took the liberty of building a system of knowledge and passing it on to you, this literature does not satisfy me at all, and you will now understand why.
The main thing in this dissatisfaction is the disease of out-of-context, and not active-activity definitions, which blur the meaning so much that for people who have the task of programming and designing the state structure, social development, who are preparing to implement justice in the life of the country and people, is so blurry, loose, multi-vector definitions give absolutely nothing. To illustrate, I will specifically read out quotes from philosophical encyclopedias, and using these examples, try to practically grasp the meaning of the word justice, and most importantly, understand how it can be implemented in such an interpretation in the state and public life. Let's start.
Justice is a general moral sanction of the joint life of people, considered primarily and from the point of view of clashing desires, interests, duties, a way of justifying and distributing between individuals the benefits and burdens of their joint existence within the framework of a single social space. There are two meanings of the concept of justice: broad and narrow. This distinction was proposed by Aristotle, whose doctrine of justice, of its essential content, retains its significance to the present. In a general, broad sense, justice is the reasonableness of social life. It can be defined as the common moral denominator of all socially ordered relations between people, the last moral appeal instance in public affairs. It coincides with morality in its projection on the social sphere, is the main virtue social institutions. In a special, narrow sense of the word, justice is a morally sanctioned proportionality in the distribution of hardships and benefits of people living together, the degree of perfection of the very method of cooperating activities and mutual balancing of conflicting interests in society, the state.
If the author of this text is not stopped, he himself, it seems, will not stop. Can you answer my questions, at least one of them, after reading this text? At least for the last one? What should everyone do with this box if you want to achieve justice in the lives of people and society?
Here is another definition that is closer to the quality we require.
Justice is the concept of due, the corresponding definition of understanding the essence of man and his inalienable rights. Justice is a category of moral and legal, as well as socio-political consciousness, since it evaluates social reality that is subject to preservation or change from the point of view of obligation. In contrast to the concepts of good and good, with the help of which individual phenomena are evaluated, taken by themselves, justice is characterized by the relationship of several phenomena in terms of the distribution of already existing good and evil among people. In particular, the concept of justice requires a correspondence between the practical role of various individuals, social groups in the life of society and their social position, between their rights and duties, between deed and reward, labor and reward, crime and punishment, the merits of people and their public recognition, as well as the equivalence of the interchange of activity and its products. The discrepancy between these ratios is assessed as an injustice.
This definition is closer to some meaningful logical model that answers the questions I have posed. But we will go our own way.
WHAT IS JUSTICE?
What is justice? Is it an object, is it a characteristic, is it a phenomenon or is it a process? The phenomenon is obvious. Feature is obvious. The rest is not obvious. How does one judge what is fair or unfair? In what situation does he generally designate this topic for himself?
Imagine Robinson on an island that does not yet have a Friday when he lived alone. He has no communication with people, society, the state. Does he have a sense of justice or injustice? The only communication (for the purity of the experiment, we will now discard it aside) is communication with God, with whom every person in those days, of course, communicated. Robinson called out: "God! Why are you unfair to me, why have you created such difficulties in life?. Does he question justice or injustice? It is absolutely, obvious and reliable that it does not arise at all.
That is, the first conclusion: justice is something, it is a certain characteristic or some circumstance, factor or reason that arises in communications. Communications of whom with whom? A person with his own kind, there are many of them, at the limit it is a society, and with the state.
What is this communication? This is communication of exchange. A person expects something from others from some of his own considerations and receives something from them. A person expects something from society, from the state, and receives something from them. What could it be? It can be something tangible or intangible.
How does a person fix what is fair or unfair? How? Does he see it? Hear? Does it smell? No. He mentally, psychologically feels, he feels that something that is happening is unfair. Feels not with physical sense organs, but feels and feels mentally. This means that he mentally compares something that is happening with a certain standard and says: “Coincides! So, it’s fair!”, “It doesn’t match! So it's unfair!" What does he compare and with what standard? What is the subject and content of justice. And what is this standard?
A person has a need for communication with society. He expects from his own kind, from society and from the state the same streams of material and non-material benefits or rewards. Why is he waiting for them? Because such is the nature of man, sociality, cooperativeness is an absolutely inalienable property of him. On what basis does he form expectations of certain rewards? A person has his own internal idea, it is almost equivalent to the idea of human dignity, of what he deserves. This is expected on the basis of a person's ideas about himself, about his own dignity - this is the position "I am waiting for retribution."
And where does the reward come from? And what is this? Obviously, what is given, in response to what is expected, is received from another person, from society or the state. On what grounds, for what reasons is something rewarded to someone? We take a micro-society - a family. Toddlers expect from dad and mom, due to established social communications, food, comfort, protection, and praise. It’s already, and it’s almost obvious that if there is an equal sign between the expected person based on his own ideas about what he deserves, and the equal sign given by society, the state or another person, then a person has a feeling: “This is fair.” The equality of what is expected by man and what is repaid to him is just.
The word "fair" speaks for itself in many ways. It has a semantic root - "rights". The same root exists in the word and the semantic space of the word "correct". The same root is in the word "righteous" and in the word "law" in the sense of the field of jurisprudence, legality, enforcement of the procedures established by law.
These words: "correct", "righteous", "right", "fair" appeal to a certain criterion. The desired standard of comparison. What is right/wrong? We have already dealt with the fact that a person is characterized by well-defined motivations and manifestations in the worldview, intention and action itself. A true person is a person of labor, collectivism, sociality, spiritual satisfaction, intangible values, love, children, family, innovation, altruism, tolerance, values. human life, empathy, creativity, striving for excellence. These are absolute, ideal constants. What are the constants? Not only a true man, but also the totality of people, a human, humanized, true society.
If what is expected by a person coincides with what is given to him (equals sign), this is true. If, in the opinion of this person, an inequality sign appears, he feels that this is unfair, that is, wrong, that is, does not correspond to some absolute constants. It is very important. Let me remind you the difference between morality and morality: morality is the absolute constant of the image of a true person, and morality is the current, achievable on this stage development of society understanding of morality, which from the very morality can still be quite far away.
So, justice is the coincidence of what is expected by a person and what is rendered to him. But remember that the problem of justice arises in connection with the communications of a person with society and a person with the state, and communication is a mutually directed process. If a person expects something from society, then does society expect something from a person? Of course yes. What does it expect from him? "Barankin! Be human!", - there was such a cartoon plot of Yeralash. "Human! Be human! Be a true person, i.e. be social, hardworking, law-abiding, loving, merciful, creative, innovative. And if society, the state sees that a person does not meet these expectations, for example, does not want to fulfill the sacred duty of defending the Fatherland in the name of the country's well-being, then what happens? There is a feeling that something is wrong, unfair, that this person violates some standards that communications make fair. There is a sense of injustice.
Therefore, the concept of justice in relation to one single person outside of his social nature, outside the presence of communicators - the state and society, does not exist at all. The concept of "justice" lives exclusively in the space of the concepts of "true man", "good", "morality". From this understanding, the conclusion arises that justice is a characteristic of the state of a person, his relationships, absorbing all evolutionary and stage-by-stage forthcoming characteristics.
How is social justice different from justice? And nothing is different. Because justice, as we have seen, is inherently social. If there is no society, social communication, no human environment, then there is no concept of justice itself. In fact, "social" is a redundant word.
Justice is the highest ideological characteristic, a characteristic of a person's intentions and actions, as well as of his communities, i.e. society and the state, which makes man and society true, human. Hence this very deep, Russian, ancient word - "righteous." Therefore, we eventually called our new work “The State of Justice - a Righteous State”, choosing the most important formula: “Justice is righteousness, this is compliance with the absolute natural constants that make a person a person, and make humanity human.”
Why then is the term “social justice”, “social service”, “social policy”, “welfare state” so common? This is no coincidence. Remember, I mentioned that the flow of rewards in response to expectations includes tangible and intangible components? What exactly has historically been the key and the main challenge for the physical life of a person? Of course, material: food, clothing, housing, medicines, etc. The achievement of justice then, and to a large extent, is now associated in real practice with material distribution, therefore this institution of justice is de facto primary, and it remains dominant today. But he does not describe the full scope of the people's demand: "My human dignity is not lower than the dignity of any other person."
In deep history there was no such principle, the ancients considered fair what was established as such by people in their contractual practice. Lord - lordly; slave - slave. Caesar - Caesar's, and God - God's. The agreement at a certain stage in the evolution of human societies, the right based on this agreement, reflecting the real level of approach to the true person and to true morality, true goodness, of course, was scanty and limited. A rigid connection was born between law and the order established by it: this master, and this slave, with all the consequences arising from such a definition for one and the other.
Justice and law seem to be intertwined, they still go inextricably linked. In our work, we made a surprising discovery: in modern Russian legislation(I'm not talking about the Constitution) this topic is not raised at all. In the next lesson, we will talk about how this fundamental, true, essential, semantic justice can be realized in law and state building. In Putin's Russia, our state does not even come close to a just state and the concept of justice. It lives according to the laws of the jungle, namely: the more competitive you are, the more benefits you will receive, the more reliably you will achieve justice for yourself; and the weaker you are, the less attention to you, you don’t need to think about you at all.
For example, the liberal Yavlinsky in his presidential program "What to do with the Russian economy?" there is this preamble: “The state must be subordinated to the interests of active, active people”. We've arrived! And the rest of the people who are not active and not active? Shouldn't they be visible to the state at all? Should their interests be ignored? This is how racism, fascism, is born, and it is called a crafty snag - liberalism.
We return to the equation - expected and repaid. A person expects from society and the state, society also expects from a person and the state. A person gives labor, obedience to the law, social ̧ moral behavior to society, the state, fulfills his duty, duties, but society and the state give a person wages, provide working conditions, ecological environment, security, protection, social assistance, etc.
Why Soviet Union and the ideas of socialism, communism are often primitivized, mocked at them: "Equalization! All equally!”? Because the first, obvious, primitive thought about justice is this: “Why is it more for them and less for us (or more for this and less for this)? Should be equal". But immediately the opposite thought is born: “And why, in fact, equally? This one worked, and this one did nothing. So this one needs more, and this one needs less.”
The formula of socialism, which, unfortunately, is not currently taught in humanitarian specialties, was very deep and important: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." But this formula is not complete. Let's imagine this formula for a model of society - a family: dad and mom work, which means they have to work, and kids or elderly, sick, incapacitated old parents ... And what about them? Nothing? Of course not. Because the original absolute objective essence of justice is justice in communications. If, according to Yavlinsky, active, active citizens - father and mother in the family - think only of themselves, and children and old people die of hunger, what will happen next? And nothing will happen. Life will stop. Mom and dad will also eventually grow old and die. It destroys the very fact of life. This means that not just by work, but also by the very dignity of a person associated with the fact that babies and old people are family members, and they have their own social law to the level of dignity in accordance with which the redistribution of material goods takes place. And it's not equalization at all. And not at all for everyone. That is, these principles are only valid and necessary in certain contexts.
Remember, Sholokhov's story "The Fate of a Man", in which the captured Russian soldier Sokolov, having received a loaf of bread from a fascist who was scolding him, returns to the barracks and in the barracks this loaf is cut with a thread into tiny pieces of bread: "Equally for everyone!" ? This tiny piece of bread, which everyone got, could not save lives, did not change anything materially, but how important it was morally! He personified equality in brotherhood, in trouble, in fate. And this moral feeling saved lives, because it was human, it was fair.
The principle of equality in the material, giving rise to its extreme, primitive forms in the form of leveling, caused a decrease in motivation for creative work in the Soviet Union. Socialist competitions and honorary titles of Heroes of Socialist Labor did not help. As we now understand, this principle is far from being the only one in the space for the implementation of justice. But it was the first important step.
STAGES ON THE WAY OF PROMOTION OF HUMANITY TO REALIZATION OF JUSTICE
The historical response of societies to wild inequality and the public demand for material equality was socialist revolutions, socialization, state intervention in the distributive material processes, primarily the creation of targeted public consumption funds and the birth of that same welfare state (welfare state). As Putin put it: “Only in the West did the socialist revolution in Russia bear fruit. It didn't bear any fruit for us.". But, God be with him, with Vladimir Vladimirovich.
Something else is important. The progressive evolutionary development has not canceled the struggle between the true man (goodness, morality) and the anti-human being (evil, immorality, appropriation, rent, loan interest). Both the ideology and the practice of this counter-humanity took on a new form.
The stage of the liberal interpretation of justice has begun, here the word "equality" is also used. A very crafty stage with crafty technologies, laws, the Constitution. This is the liberal stage of the so-called equality of opportunity.
What is written in the Constitution of our country in 1993? Everyone has equal rights and freedoms. But why do people live so differently: some do not receive even the most necessary medical care, cannot buy simple medicines and eventually die, while others are treated in the best clinics by leading doctors in the world? Opportunities are supposedly equal, but life is completely different. The word "human dignity" is forgotten here, but there is supposedly equality. But at the same time, it is slyly not mentioned that the starting conditions are different for everyone, that, it turns out, justice judges the rich in one way, and the poor in another, a relative or friend of the President in one way, and a stranger in another. Sechin did not come to court four times, the court wiped himself: "OK. Well, what to do ... Well, he didn’t come ... ". And where are the bailiffs and the forcible bringing to court in handcuffs of a witness who violates the law obliging him to appear in court? Some uncle Vasya would try not to appear in court! Not only would he have been brought in right away, he would have also tried clubs in the courtroom if he had spoken out on the part of judicial injustice.
The second stage on the way of humanity's progress towards the realization of justice - the equality of what is paid and what is expected - has acquired a crafty pharisaic appearance - equality of opportunity under the flag of liberalism. The next evolutionary stage will give rise to a kind of state of justice, which absorbs the moral state, the rule of law, the social state as forerunners - this is what we discovered, what we predict, design and offer to Russia in the form of a draft of its new Constitution, doctrines, laws. This future gives rise to the state of justice as a righteous state, in which both the right is correct, and the material distribution flows are correct, and justice on a sensual level is achieved for each person. In such a state, our understanding of justice is realized - a person is equal in his dignity. Remember, first equality in material things, then equality of opportunity, and finally equality in human dignity. We will consider such a state from the point of view of the organization of its institutions, functions, orders, mechanisms and procedures in our next lesson.
I will make one more very important remark, which is not mentioned in the literature. Remember, when talking about fairness, we deduced the equation: it is fair when in given = expected. How is it possible to achieve equality in this equation, if, for example, what is expected exceeds the capacity of the retributor? Increasing the rewarded, tangible and intangible. Is it possible? Of course available. The development of the economy, the development of material flows to the address of minors, the elderly, the sick, state employees, military personnel. They do not create material things, but everyone consumes them.
And if there is a limitation: you can’t build up more material, it won’t be enough labor potential, resources? But there is, after all, the possibility of reducing what is expected - this is called "non-acquisitiveness", the education not of consumerism, but of rationality, sufficiency of consumption. As the Russian saint said: "Do not acquire - you will be rich". Seems like a paradox! Not really. You will be rich in spirit, meaning, a sense of the righteous, the right. Here is the important key! Why does a person need justice? To feel happy. When such a feeling arises, then one feels the correctness, the righteousness of life. Even if a person is assigned some kind of physical suffering, he will overcome the suffering with his spirit, the appearance of a true, real person. Even dying in agony, he will smile, because he won, because he has something to answer for his life.
Let's go back to our equation. We can increase what is given to a person by increasing the supply of material goods and developing the offer of non-material goods: respect, recognition, prestige of work, sociality, humanity, kindness, all those characteristics that make a person a person. And we can influence what a person expects, educating him in the values of a true person. And such a statement already puts forward demands on the state. What should education be like? How to build upbringing? How to equip culture, literature, art, cinema, theater? What should be advertising, social, political and psychological advertising in the country? And many more "How ...?".
And we understand that from our equation, a deep, universal definition of justice, an understanding of what social justice is, a vision of the stages of evolution from human equality in the material through the equality of people in opportunities and, finally, to the equality of man and humanity in human dignity, we develop scheme, rules, instructions on how we can build a state, how to build relationships in society, so that a person is a person, a human society, the state is a state of justice.
UNITE!
Look how far we have come now. Having introduced the basic definition, we came to the conclusion that on its basis we have found a way and are able to design a state of justice for everyone and everyone, with the demand for equality of dignity for every person, which puts racism, social Darwinism, liberalism, fascism, violence, inequality in the trash. And by the way, Putin's current model of Russia. Russia can now become different.
I hope you have seen how important your own understanding and mastery of your own thinking method is. He not only allowed the drafting of the Constitution, the doctrines of the organization of the state, laws describing public relations. It provides the key to answering new challenges and questions as well.
QUESTIONS FOR SELF-CHECKING AND DEEPENING THE GAINED KNOWLEDGE
1. Define justice
2. How is morality different from morality?
3. What are the three stages in the implementation of justice?
4. What are the ways to balance the equity equation?
5. How does the state embody justice?
6. How is justice different from social justice?
Photo: Longjumeau School. The listeners heatedly discuss the task set before them by Comrade Lenin... Drawing by S. Trofimov
RUSSIAN STATE SOCIAL UNIVERSITY
Branch in Minsk
Department of Law and social theory
in the discipline "Economics"
on the topic "Social equality and justice in market economy»
Completed:
Checked:
Introduction
1 The general theoretical context of the concept of "justice
2 Social justice in modern ethical theory: problems and solutions
3 Social equality and "equalization": correlation of concepts
Conclusion
List of sources used
Introduction
The theoretical analysis of the transformational processes taking place in the country's economy involves the development of new research objects for domestic economic science. Among them, an important place is occupied by the problem of social justice in the modern market economy.
The plurality of forms of ownership arising in the conditions of a transitional economy determines new guidelines and values social sphere, puts before society the task of forming a system of socio-economic adaptation, taking into account domestic traditions. At the same time, the inconsistency of transformations creates additional difficulties in the transition to the market, and therefore the development of the problem of social justice in a market society acquires not only economic, but also socio-political relevance.
Such an analysis is possible under the condition of studying the whole complex of economic relations that underlie social justice and cover (regulate) the economic behavior of almost all subjects of the market process. But it is precisely these aspects that have been on the periphery of the attention of economists for a long time, while we are talking on the analysis of the most important mechanism for the qualitative transformation of the entire economic system on the basis of the formation of a social market economy.
The undevelopment of these issues determined the relevance of the chosen research topic, the results of which can contribute to the formation of a scientifically based social policy in a market economy.
The degree of development of the problem. Social justice is one of the traditional problems of economic science. At the same time, its development in the light of the transformation of deep relations in the Belarusian and Russian society is clearly insufficient. This made it possible to use in the process of developing the author's concept both classical and fundamental research market economy, the problems of building a "welfare society" (A. Smith, D. Ricardo, K. Marx, F. Engels, A. Marshall, etc.), and the works of modern economists who created the methodological and theoretical prerequisites for the problem under study (among which stand out the works of E. Atkinson, R. Barr, A. Buzgalin, L. Grebnev, J. Kornai, H. Lampert, A. Livshits, V. Radaev, D. Stiglitz and others).
The use of the developments of domestic and foreign analysts made it possible to carry out a political and economic study of social justice in a modern market society and the features of its implementation in the conditions of domestic realities.
The urgency of the problem, the degree of its scientific development and the practical significance of solving many aspects of social policy in the context of the market transformation of the country's economy determined the choice of the topic, the purpose and objectives of the study.
The purpose of the work is to develop the theoretical foundations and mechanism for the implementation of social justice and social equality in a modern market economy.
In accordance with the set goal, a whole range of theoretical problems is solved in the work:
Develop methodological principles for the implementation of social justice and social equality in a market economy;
To reveal the content and forms of manifestation of the "social neutrality" of the market mechanism as such and show the possibility of creating conditions under which it can contribute to the achievement of social justice.
Methodological and theoretical basis research served as concepts and hypotheses presented and substantiated in classical and contemporary writings domestic and foreign economists and sociologists.
1 The general theoretical context of the concept of "justice"
The first level of the study of justice refers to the most general, initial meaning of the concept under consideration, to that axiological sphere, which is marked by the words "fair" and "unfair". Implicitly, the allocation of such a sphere inevitably precedes all normative and situational-practical concretizations of justice. In the literature on ethical theory, a similar problem is referred to as the problem of the relationship between the concept and numerous conceptions of justice. It should also be taken into account that the general theoretical context of the concept of "justice" is not limited to the problem of its correct definition. Along with this, there is another problem - the problem of clarifying those situations and interpersonal relationships that are covered by the ethics of justice (in English literature - "the scope of justice"). It assumes that any principles of justice make sense only against the background of a certain structured social reality, the features of which turn into a prerequisite for the search for a fair system of relationships between members of society. The question of the scope of justice can be considered relatively independently of the question of the definition of justice. However, in reality, their solution is possible only in the course of a single, comprehensive research.
What can be included in a general, concept-neutral definition of justice? A generalization of linguistic usage and theoretical reflection on this concept leads us to the following formulation. Justice is the idea of a proper, morally sanctioned order of interaction between members of society, which is given by the proportionality of benefits and losses, advantages and hardships of living together on the basis of rights expressing the equal moral dignity of each person, duties that determine the degree of participation of individuals in maintaining social cooperation, as well as the quality of their actions, which creates the principle of differentiation of rights and obligations. As the basis of this order are the values of equality and impartiality. Moreover, impartiality is expressed in the formal rule "treat all identical cases in the same way, and different cases differently," and equality is understood only as a presumption.
The presumption of equality, clearly formulated already by Aristotle, is that it is social inequality, and not equality, that needs to be justified in the face of justice. That is, in accordance with this principle, in order to recognize some kind of inequality as acceptable, solid arguments should be presented in its defense, starting from morality itself, religion, metaphysics, or an impartial analysis of the actual conditions of social reality. The very wording "presumption of equality" belongs to I. Berlin, who believed that the famous Bentham formula ("everyone should be considered for one person and no one - for more than one") is preceded as a basis by a more fundamental and broader egalitarian statement: "if given that there is a class of human beings, it follows that all members of that class, humans, should be treated equally and uniformly, unless there are sufficient reasons not to do so." It follows that even a hierarchical society needs not just an explanation, but a justification of the existing inequalities. But this also leads to the fact that the ideal of equality, when it is operationalized within the framework of specific concepts of justice, can be expressed in the requirements of an identical, proportional, or even simply balanced distribution of burdens and advantages.
Of fundamental importance is also the fact that ideas of justice are not only the source of the demands made by a moral individual on himself, but also the basis for moral claims against other people. Unlike the ethics of mercy, the ethics of justice cannot be based on the call "do not judge." The fixation of injustice gives rise to a desire in a person who has a sense of justice to verbalize his indignation, make it public and restore the disturbed balance (punish the violator, compensate for the losses of the victim, rebuild the structure of institutions, etc.) But all this also means that in order to realize the feeling justice needs a powerful external resource, whether it be a resource of distributed material goods or a resource of legitimate power. The latter circumstance is also a definitive characteristic of this moral value.
Moving from the concept of justice to its area, it must be pointed out that the tradition of clarifying the circumstances that give rise to the need for an ethics of justice has deep historical roots. However, we first find a detailed study of them in D. Hume. The first condition for the application of the concept of "justice", from his point of view, is such a state of society that lies between two extremes: an absolute shortage of goods, when their most correct distribution leaves the majority without means for a decent life, and absolute abundance, in which any desire can be satisfied without prejudice to the interests of another (moderate lack of goods). The second condition is the fact that the ability of individuals to make sacrifices and concessions is limited by the tendency to be biased towards their own interests and the interests of those close to them (limited generosity). The third condition is related to the inability of members of human communities to guarantee their own security, relying solely on their own strengths (approximate equality of opportunity and ability, or mutual vulnerability). Finally, the fourth condition is determined by the need for the presence of other people as participants in cooperative activities to provide material means of life and as partners in interpersonal communication(mutual dependence).
Among Hume's conditions, the most vulnerable to criticism are limited generosity and moderate scarcity of goods. After all, if the absolute sacrifice of all members of a given society or the absolute availability of all conceivable benefits of living together really eliminate the question of a proper balance of rights and duties, then even the most acute shortage of various benefits or the absolute egoism of all members of society does not exclude discussion of the degree of justice in relations between people. In this regard, the last two Humean circumstances can be reformulated as "the presence of particular interests fraught with a situation of conflict" and as "lack of goods valued by people."
In addition to revision, Hume's circumstances of justice require some additions. After all, the content of the circumstances of justice is such that they may well be interpreted as a kind of "conditions of injustice", that is, as the main source of all the flaws in the social cosmos. Such a position, at first glance, seems quite acceptable and may even receive the catchy name of "dialectical": the highest justice consists in overcoming the very necessity of justice. However, the idea of overcoming the circumstances of justice on the basis of an appeal to this value itself falls under the action of arguments conventionally labeled as slippery slope arguments. Such reasoning is an integral part of the conservative tradition in social philosophy and points to the inevitable destabilization of the ordered status quo in the case of radical innovations.
The price of striving to achieve a fundamental change in the human situation on the basis of "jealous virtue" (D. Hume) and with the help of the means suggested by it is always too high, and the result is extremely uncertain. Therefore, overcoming the circumstances of justice can be perceived as a natural limit to disputes about what is fair or unfair in the structure of human societies. This conclusion can also be reformulated in a broader perspective, which allows one to go beyond the Humean list of circumstances of justice. As the boundary of the scope of the normative concept of "justice" could be such a wording as "overcoming human nature" .
This provision is sporadically found in ethical literature, although more often "overcoming human nature" acts as a boundary of the normative claims of morality in general. But it seems to me that morality as such is unthinkable without striving beyond the limits of human nature. It is one of the ways of transcending purely human forms of existence. However, the same cannot be said about that part of morality, which is usually called the ethics of justice.
2 Social justice in modern ethical theory: problems and solutions
In the last third of the 20th century, which gave rise to a significant surge of interest in the ethical theory of the West in questions of a just social order, the problematic field of the theory of justice took on the following outlines. Against the backdrop of an approximate consensus on issues of legal or political justice, which requires a democratic social order, formal civil equality and the provision of a number of fundamental personal freedoms, the issue of a fair socio-economic distribution turned out to be extremely debatable. It is this topic that is conventionally labeled as "social justice". The conceptual development of the theory of justice turned out to be tied to the clarification of various distributive paradigms and to the search for rational grounds that would make it possible to prefer any of them. At the same time, despite the wide scatter of concepts, their general trend has been preserved to this day, which can be called a trend towards normative and epistemological unification. Many researchers proceed from the possibility and necessity to formulate a single (and only) theory of justification of fair distribution, from which a single (and only) distributive principle (paradigm) should follow. However, until now, an unambiguous connection between certain logics of justification and distributive paradigms has not yet been formed.
The traditional set of distributive paradigms.
In the sphere of socio-economic distribution, three main distributive paradigms can be distinguished, which set different criteria for the distribution of those benefits, the possession of which allows us to speak about the relative prosperity of an individual within a given social system. First, it is an egalitarian paradigm, where the criterion is the approximate equality of human needs.
The following can be considered a legitimate embodiment of such equality: a) equal individual property, mainly labor, b) equal consumer access to collective (public) property, and, finally, c) partial equalizing correction of the results of the functioning of those social institutions and natural processes that generate inequalities in consumption . The first, Rousseauist ideal in modern conditions is absolutely archaic, the second idea, inherent in the Marxist understanding of socialism, no doubt violates the boundaries of the very concept of justice, therefore the latter is the predominant position within the egalitarian understanding of social justice.
The second distributive paradigm suggests merit distribution. It is often referred to as the meritocratic concept. In a meritocratic context, in contrast to an egalitarian one, the idea of equal treatment of people is interpreted through the prism of proportional equality (in the spirit of the famous Platonic statement that "for unequals, equal would become unequal"). The first thesis of this concept is that access to prestigious social positions should be open only to those individuals who are capable of performing socially important functions, and to the extent that they are capable of doing so. The paradigmatic reasoning of the meritocratic understanding of justice is the Aristotelian idea that flutes should go to the best flute players. Therefore, the concept of merit is strictly delimited from hereditary-aristocratic dignity and characterizes the value of an individual, taken outside of his socio-historical roots. The second thesis of the meritocratic concept is the belief that merit should determine not just access to functional social positions, but also the fullness of the social status associated with them. The implementation of socially important functions should be associated with proportionally unequal remuneration, which concerns signs of honor and respect, as well as consumer goods.
Within the framework of this distributive paradigm, radical and moderate variations are clearly distinguished. The radical version insists on the destruction of those institutions that produce allegedly undeserved inequalities (family, individual property with the right to gift and inheritance, etc.), on a rigid formal ranking of individuals in accordance with their abilities (first, potential, and then, tested in certain area of activity). However, the radical version of meritocracy, like earlier radical egalitarianism, is inherently a project to overcome human nature, which discredits it in light of the limitations of the concept of justice. A moderately meritocratic project looks different. In it, the functioning of institutions associated with unmerited distribution is only adjusted in the direction of greater conformity to merit.
For supporters of the third distributive paradigm, justice consists in the rightful possession of property and the use of all the social advantages associated with this. This paradigm corresponds to the libertarian tradition in contemporary social ethics. Its key thesis is the rejection by the centralized administrative apparatus of any schematized patterns of equitable distribution of resources. In this regard, the very concept of "justice" or, at least, "social justice" falls under serious suspicion. If certain property is obtained by an individual on the basis of labor or entrepreneurial activity or transferred to him by others in situations where there was no fraud and violence, then he legally owns them and no one can dispute such possession as unfair. Despite this, the libertarian position still involves a significant redistribution of property, since the preservation of the purity of powers requires the constant correction of violent and fraudulent transactions.
Among the key difficulties of the libertarian approach as a socio-ethical theory is its obvious divergence from the moral ideas of fundamental equality, from the imperative of concern for the welfare of one's neighbor, and other axioms of morality. Social and economic libertarianism, beyond serious limitations, looks rather not as a moral position, but as a simple ideological reflection of the owner's egoism.
b) paradoxes of the theoretical substantiation of social justice
As for the various logics of justifying justice, they are represented by the following main models: intuitionist, utilitarian, naturalistic, contractor.
The first way to justify a distributive policy is to appeal to rationally obvious starting points that make us prefer this or that distribution option as the most just. An example is the concept of justice, built on the basis of inalienable individual rights and freedoms, which must be ensured within any social system. They directly express the idea of the equal value of all people, regardless of their actual importance to each other. Thus, the deontology of inalienable rights, applied to the problem of distributive justice, carries a powerful egalitarian charge, opposed, first of all, to the meritocratic paradigm.
However, egalitarian conclusions are not a foregone conclusion for her. Individual rights do not represent a homogeneous whole. They are divided into negative (or "first generation" rights), which assume that the government and other people refrain from interfering in the life of an autonomous person, and positive (or "second generation" rights), which assume that each individual is guaranteed a certain level of well-being. The prioritization and enforcement of different rights entail very different normative recommendations.
When emphasizing the importance of the rights of the first generation, a libertarian deontology is formed, which considers any redistribution as the use of the most successful members of society, "cancellation" of them as independent individuals, and thereby a serious humiliation of their human dignity (R. Nozick). However, if the realization of the rights of the first generation (which are dominated by civil rights) is made directly dependent on the observance of socio-economic rights, then within the framework of the intuitive logic of justifying justice, a different interpretation will prevail, tending to equalize consumption levels.
The second model for justifying fair distribution is the utilitarian one. The premise of fundamental ethical equality in utilitarian thought is represented by the formula mentioned above, which belongs to J. Bentham. However, the degree of actual egalitarianism of utilitarian distributive concepts depends on a set of attendant conditions that vary the total utility generated by this or that variant of resource allocation.
For example, if one adheres to the thesis of the extreme difficulty or impossibility of interpersonal comparisons of utility, then the principle of resource allocation will be the Pareto principle. In this case, the logic of utility maximization leads to the approval of any unequal distribution, if the redistribution will entail the worsening of the position of any of the individuals in comparison with the status quo. If, however, the system of free market exchange is taken as the Pareto-optimal order, then the desire to maximize utility will lead us to a moderately libertarian position. However, if interpersonal comparisons are recognized as possible and the concept of “diminishing marginal utility” is invoked, built on the assumption that the receipt by the poor of a certain amount of goods gives a greater increase in utility in general than the loss of the same amount of goods by the over-provided, then utilitarianism turns into an egalitarian concept of social justice. But the possible transformations of the normative conclusions of utilitarianism do not end there either. Even after accepting the law of diminishing "marginal utility", the utilitarian position can be modified in favor of a meritocratic or libertarian paradigm. This is because merit distribution or the protection of rightful possession may be seen as a prerequisite economic efficiency or socio-political stability of society.
One of the most common alternatives to the intuitionist deontology of rights and utilitarianism in modern social ethics is the naturalistic model of the justification of fair distribution. Supporters of the naturalistic model argue for a return to classical, pre-modern models of political and moral philosophy. Their central thesis is the assertion that it is possible to fix the natural features of a person and, in the light of these features, a certain image of human destiny. Then the effectiveness of social mechanisms that control the distribution of resources is determined not in the light of guarantees of inalienable rights or maximization of preferences, but in the light of the realization of substantial human needs and the creation of conditions for the achievement of perfections (virtues). Depending on the emphasis - on needs or perfections - one can distinguish meritocratic or egalitarian variants of naturalism.
Thus, the justification models listed are involved in a potentially endless debate, with none of them providing arguments that would work in favor of only one distributive paradigm. This unfortunate situation seems to be taken into account in the contractionary understanding of social justice, where the selection of fair conditions for a hypothetical choice allows one to weed out rationally unacceptable theories of justification and determine the ideal balance of distributive paradigms. For example, against the background of the conditions of an honest agreement according to J. Rawls, the utilitarian and naturalistic models of justification reveal their inconsistency, and intuitions regarding rights receive a clear and unambiguous form. At the same time, the "principle of difference" (that is, the principle of the maximum possible maximization of the position of those who lost in the social lottery), chosen by the parties to the agreement behind the "curtain of ignorance", looks like a final and balanced solution to the dispute of paradigms: a decision in favor of one of the variants of moderate egalitarianism .
However, the unambiguity of the conclusions proposed by the theory of a hypothetical contract by J. Rawls is also under serious question. The logic of the reasoning of the participants in the "initial position" and its results are presented by different theorists in different ways. Thus, J. Harsanyi, relying on a slightly different interpretation of the ratio of rationality and justified risk than that of J. Rawls, suggested that the participants in an imaginary contract would still choose the utilitarian principle of distribution, although they used non-utilitarian premises during the choice. J.P. Sterba suggested that their choice would be a choice in favor of "high, but not the highest of all possible social minimums." At the same time, D. Bell quite successfully used the contractualist methodology to justify non-egalitarian methods of distribution.
Social equality - the state of society, which is characterized by the absence of significant social differences. One of the humanistic universal values. Initially, the idea of social equality was of a religious nature. According to Christianity and some other religions, all people are equal from birth. This is the so-called idea of the ontological equality of people. In the sense of equality of opportunity, the concept of social equality has been used as one of the three basic principles of bourgeois revolutions (freedom, equality, fraternity) and bourgeois law.
The egalitarian distribution of goods "equalization" is the most ancient principle of human cohabitation. In societies based on the principle of the family, everyone has an equal right to food. This is reflected in its purest form in primitive societies.
The meaning of the Marxist-socialist leveling is due to the fact that, according to Marxism, formal equality is bourgeois law, bourgeois “equal law” (according to Marxism, it was overcome at the first stage of communism in relation to the socialized means of production, but is preserved for the distribution of items of individual consumption "according to work"), and the desired "actual equality" is the satisfaction of the consumer needs of each "according to needs."
The development from the lower phase of communism (i.e. socialism) to its higher phase (full communism), according to this logic, means moving "further from formal equality to actual, i.e. to the implementation of the rule:" each according to his ability, to each according Wherever equalization operates, differentiation and difference in social roles, statuses and functions are inevitable, equalizing and equalizing with all the ensuing consequences. Among the “equals” there are nomenclature “more equal” and “most equal”.
Leveling privileges just express and maintain real possible way its implementation in life. In general, socialist leveling was called upon, with the help of power-distributive norms, to level out the differences in the sphere of consumption allowed under socialism and to keep these differences within the framework of the requirements of the principle of denying private property.
Conclusion
Summarizing the results of the study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Social justice is the subject matter of economic theory, as it is conditioned by economic relations. The degree of its practical relevance depends on the level of socio-economic differentiation of property, income, roles economic entities. The specifics of social justice as an object economic analysis consists in its multidimensionality and variety of forms of manifestation and implementation, which makes it inevitable that it is "included" in the framework of the entire spectrum of the studied economic processes; this determines the possibility of an alternative and the need to synthesize the methodology of the economic analysis of social justice.
Social justice, taking a specific expression in each sphere of the life of society, has a basic content in economic relations the process of creating conditions for the comprehensive development of a person and, above all, his productive abilities and stimulating the distribution of the results of relevant efforts (individual, corporate, social). In this aspect, economic history is a contradictory overcoming of restrictions for the implementation of social justice.
The market economy as a monetary system deforms social justice in its traditional sense, predetermining the priority of the monetary income-expenditure balance in the guidelines for the activity of an economic entity; this, according to the author, means the transformation of "social justice" into the "principle of rational behavior", although the content of the latter does not exhaust the economic space of social justice, which is a source of contradiction in the market mechanism for its implementation.
List of sources used
1. Denisov N. Social policy: goals, principles, implementation mechanisms // The Economist. - 2002. - No. 11. - S. 12.
2. Lemeshevsky I. M. Economic theory (in three parts). Part 1. Basics. Introductory course: Proc. allowance for universities. - Minsk: FUAinform LLC, 2002. - 632s.
3. Mirzakhanyan E.S., Yu. Habermas and D. Rawls: two approaches to the problem of social justice and its rational foundations // Culture and rationality. - Tver, 2007. - S. 80 - 85.
4. Organization, rationing and wages: Proc. allowance/A. S. Golovachev, N. S. Berezina, N. Ch. Bokun, and others; Pd total. Ed. A. S. Golovacheva. - M.: New knowledge, 2004. - 496 p.
5. Savchenko P. Social priorities: problems and solutions // The Economist. - 2002. - No. 5. - S. 58 - 66.
6. Economic theory: Textbook / N.I. Bazylev, M.N. Bazylev. - Minsk: Book House, 2004. - 608 p.
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
“Justice is the child of man's dissatisfaction with life. A contented person does not need justice and does not talk about it, even being a member of a developed society.
One of the most important concepts regulating human relations is the concept of justice. Justice, along with goodness, are the most ancient social ideals. People constantly rely on ideas of good and evil, justice and injustice. The idea of justice is fundamental in the legislation of a modern democratic society, in which law is regarded as normatively fixed justice. The very concept of "justice" in Latin means justice.
In the philosophical dictionary, justice is defined as “the concept of due, corresponding to the definitions of the essence of man and his inalienable rights. Justice is a category of moral and legal, as well as socio-political consciousness. Thus, the concept of justice contains the requirements of correspondence between the practical role of various individuals (social groups) in the life of society and their social status, between their rights and duties, between deed and retribution, labor and reward, crime and punishment, the merits of people and their social status. recognition. The discrepancy in these ratios is assessed as injustice. As seen from this definition, the category of justice is both ethical, and legal, and socio-political.
Justice as an ethical category is a principle that regulates individual behavior towards both other people and oneself. In relation to other people, justice opposes the selfish aspirations of a person and keeps him from harming other people. The so-called " Golden Rule morality" in its negative formulation "do not do to another what you do not wish for yourself" is directed to justice, and in the affirmative - "do to others as you would like others to do to you" - to mercy.
The main requirement of justice as an ethical category is respect for the rights and dignity of people. This thought can be expressed in another way: "justice consists in the performance of a person's duties, he meant that a duty is a form of duty, which a person is charged with actions that guarantee the rights of people." Such obligations (fulfillment of duty) can be both legal in nature (due to legislation) and moral (due to the moral requirement for respect for human dignity in relation to another). Duties and rights are always in unity. If the observance of justice in relation to other people implies the fulfillment of one's duties (duty), then justice in relation to oneself implies the upholding of one's rights.
People's perceptions of justice can vary greatly. So, if we take Ukrainian realities, these are different assessments of the activities of the UPA, different attitudes towards the status of the Russian language. Different perceptions of fairness can lead to conflict situations in society.
A special kind of justice is social justice, the subjects of which are large social groups, society as a whole, humanity. “Social justice is a system of social institutions that, not in single actions, but by its very structure, constantly ensures a distribution of political, legal, economic and other rights and material values that satisfies at least the majority of members of society.
There are different concepts of social justice. Depending on the ratio of justice, freedom, equality and inequality, the following can be distinguished:
1. Leveling concept. It comes from closeness or identity, the concepts of justice and equality. The criterion of egalitarian justice is arithmetic equality. This type justice is applied in the field of civil law transactions, compensation for damages, punishments, etc.
2. Distribution concept. Distributive justice as a principle means the division of common goods according to their dignity, in proportion to the contribution and contribution of one or another member of society: here, both equal and unequal distribution of the corresponding benefits and benefits is possible.
3. Liberal concept. This concept comes from the possibility of balancing freedom and equality, making them support each other within the framework of complete system social justice. The most famous representative of this approach is the modern American philosopher J. Rawls (author of The Theory of Justice). J. Rawls considers justice as a principle social organization. In the definition of justice, he includes the concepts of equality and inequality. Justice acts as a measure of equality and a measure of inequality between people. People should be equal in rights and this equality should be enshrined in law. They should be equal in the distribution of social values. However, inequality in the distribution of social values will also be fair, when it is such an unequal distribution that benefits everyone.
Accordingly, the definition of justice given by Rawls falls into two principles:
1. Every person should have an equal right to the most extensive system of fundamental freedoms consistent with similar freedoms for all other people.
2. Social and economic inequalities must be organized in such a way that, first, advantages can be expected from them. For everyone and, secondly, access to positions and positions was open to everyone.
The values of liberal democracy are a priority for the development of Ukraine, so the concept of J. Rawls is of practical interest. Ukraine is a multinational state, and therefore the unifying factor should be a national idea, not a nationalist one.
The category of social justice, more than others, the category drinks difficulties in defining due to its multidimensionality, variety of forms of manifestation and their practical implementation. As a substantive problem of the Joiomic theory, social justice is conditioned by economic (.
Kimi relations in society and the current mechanism for their implementation.
First of all, it should be noted that justice is a historical category, the understanding of which depends on the current level of development of production, the distribution of material conditions of production and the goods and services produced by society, as well as on the norms of morality, morality and law generally accepted in a particular society and at certain stages of its development. .
Socially fair, it is necessary to recognize the provision of work for every able-bodied person, the receipt of decent wages, social security of disabled people, children without parents, free access of citizens of the country to education, health care, sports, culture, etc.
Real opportunities for implementing the principle of social justice in each country and at a particular stage of its development are determined by the actual state of the country's economy.
Social justice can be achieved only with sufficiently high and stable rates of effective economic growth, which creates additional financial opportunities for solving not only the state, but also other subjects of social problems.
Social justice, more than any other economic category, is influenced by politics and ideology.
Trying to free himself from ideological layers, D. Galbraith proves that the goal and objectives of a just society, regardless of political system, are to "provide efficient production goods and provision of services, as well as dispose of the income received from their sale in accordance with socially acceptable and economically feasible criteria. Proceeding from such a principle in the definition of a just society, socialism "cannot be recognized as an exemplary model not only of a just society, but even of a society that is simply attractive ...".
But capitalism in its classical essence with the dominance of private property and a focus on profit production cannot be recognized, according to D. Galbraith's definition, as a society of social justice. In bringing modern capitalism closer to a society of social justice, the role of the state is essential.
The market economy as a monetary system deforms social justice in its traditional sense, predetermining the priority of the monetary income-expenditure balance in the orientation of the activities of economic entities. This orientation leads to the transformation of social justice in capitalist society and the growing contradiction between the need to increase investment in "human capital" and the desire inherent in capitalism at any stage of its development to increase profits and intensify investment processes. This contradiction can be resolved and is resolved with greater or lesser effect in the Western countries by all the structures of the modern capitalist state.
In principle, no person and no society has a binding and logically provable understanding of what social justice is.
Economists are united only in understanding the potential conditions for achieving the principle of social justice. This is enough high level social economic development countries, stable rates of effective economic growth, a system of distribution and redistribution of income, which has a stimulating effect on effective economic growth and maintenance of the country's incapacitated population at a minimum acceptable, decent standard of living for a person.
The content of the category “social justice” is refined by the category of social equality. The content of this category and the clarity in its definition is approved by most economists, in contrast to the understanding and definition of the category "social justice". The essence of social equality follows from the understanding that people are by nature individual and differ in their goals, needs, interests, their attitude towards their own life. In a market economy, money is the main result in the evaluation of the work of most people. The amount of money determines the real possibilities for satisfying all needs, any of which are also sold and bought for money.
A very real view of the understanding of equality in general in a modern market economy is the opinion of J. Galbraith: “Equality does not correspond to either human nature or the nature and system of economic motivation. Everyone knows that people differ greatly in how much they want and know how to make money. At the same time, the source of the energy and initiative that serve as the driving force of the modern economy, in part, is not just the desire to have money, but the desire to surpass others in the process of earning it.
At the same time, along with the understanding of equality and inequality, reflecting the individual differences of people, there are also concepts of social equality.
Social equality is the creation of relatively equal conditions for the all-round development of each person and his ability to work, maintaining the maximum allowable differences in the incomes of the population, equal responsibility of all citizens before the laws of the country, regardless of personal wealth and position. Implementation of the principle of social equality meets economic interests both for each individual and for society as a whole. By creating conditions for the normal development of each person, the state, if it represents the interests of the whole society, multiplies the economic return of the entire population of the country many times over and thereby increases social investments in each person.
The market economy, by its nature, implies a certain social alignment, since the market, with its main mechanism - competition, is to a certain extent a form of compromise between its
participants. All subjects market relations- interconnected: the income of one is the expense of the other and vice versa.
At the same time, world practice shows that the market does not provide income equalization even in countries with a high per capita income level. The degree of social differentiation varies from country to country and is determined mainly by differences in the place occupied by subjects in production and distribution of national income, in the level of education and special training, in their property status by the time they enter working age, etc.
As a rule, a country with a low level of economic development is characterized by a sharp differentiation in income. With an increase in the level of economic development, differentiation in the incomes of the population is reduced both due to an increase in the wages of all workers, and due to an increase in the real possibilities of the state to implement an active social policy.
To measure the degree of differentiation in income, Western economic theory and practice suggests using several indicators.
For the sake of clarity, the distribution of income by population groups is depicted in the form of a graph called the Lorenz curve, which shows the amount of deviation of the real income curve from the line of absolute equality.
Rice. 9. Lorenz curve
On the graph, the bisector D divides the square in half and characterizes absolute equality, i.e. each of the 20% of the population owns an equal 20% share of the country's income. This equal distribution of income is an ideal possibility that is practically impossible to realize. Even if the implementation of the ideal scheme for the distribution of monetary income could be carried out, this would destroy the motivation to work both among entrepreneurs and workers. However, such a scheme cannot be implemented in practice. An attempt to implement social equality in the Soviet system and egalitarian distribution led to a decrease in the effi- 474
efficiency of production and social differentiation in Soviet society based on the operation of mechanisms not related to the best achievements in efficient labor: proximity to state power and access to the distribution of scarce goods. In a market economy, all of its management mechanisms are aimed at social differentiation in society.
In real life, income is distributed unevenly. As a rule, a smaller share of the population owns most of the country's income.
The ideal distribution of income is characterized by the bisector D, while their actual distribution is shown by the Lorenz-VSD curve. The farther the Lorenz curve is from the bisector, the more convex it is, the higher the degree of inequality in income distribution. In our graph, the Lorenz curve characterizes the differentiation in incomes of the population economically. developed countries.
For modern Russia Lorentz curve OVSD has a more convex character, indicating a significant differentiation in the incomes of the population.
The Italian economist C. Gini proposed quantification the degree of uneven distribution of incomes or their inequality, which is included in economics as the Gini coefficient.
The Gini coefficient is calculated by dividing the area of the OVSD by the area of the ODE rectangle, i.e.
Coeff. J. =
The larger the area of the DCIA, the greater the value of the Gini coefficient, and the higher the degree of income inequality. The value of the Gini coefficient can vary from 0 to 1. However, it can never reach these extreme values, since "O" would mean absolute equality, and "I" - absolute inequality.
in economics and social policy states distinguish between such concepts as living wage, social subsistence minimum, poverty.
subsistence minimum income to meet minimum physical needs.
The social subsistence minimum is an income that, in addition to the costs of meeting the minimum physiological needs, includes the costs of meeting the minimum social and spiritual needs that are characteristic of the level of development of a given country.
Poverty studies allow us to conclude that poverty, as a phenomenon of socio-economic life, occurs whenever, given the existing relations between subjects in society ( employee and employer, person and various institutions social protection etc.) regarding the formation of the basic conditions for the life of a person, family, part of the population, due to various reasons, is not in 475
able to satisfy the minimum needs that ensure physical existence, preservation of working capacity, procreation.
Poverty is expressed in financial situation person when, as a result of the absence necessary resources(money, property, education, health status, etc.) his life cannot be maintained at the level of the minimum standards accepted in this society,
Depending on the duration of poverty and the level of the economic situation of the family, several forms of it can be distinguished.
1. Temporary poverty is a reversible state, stay in which does not lead to qualitative changes in the material situation and standard of living. 2. Long-term poverty is associated with irreversible changes in the material situation and standard of living of the population and means the persistence of poverty for a long time and even possible in the next generations. 3. Poverty - the most acute or extreme form of poverty, in which the physiological minimum of consumption is not provided.
Market reforms in Russia have made significant changes in the social structure of society, income and consumption of various social groups. The state release of prices on January 2, 1992, the opening of the domestic market for foreign manufacturers caused a multiple increase in prices for consumer goods, depreciated the currency and monetary savings of the population; the standard of living of 80% of families fell by more than 10 times, dropping them below the poverty line. Only 2% of Russia's population benefited from market reforms, forming a layer of super-rich even by the standards of economically developed Western countries.
The main feature of differentiation in the incomes of the population during the years of market transformations is basically the lack of connection with the labor contribution of social groups with high and ultra-high incomes to the creation of the country's national income.
New in social structure Russian society - the emergence of a layer of "open" millionaires who advertise their ultra-high incomes.
Social differentiation causes a sharp negative attitude towards the authorities and the “new Russians”. sociological research show that society is ready to accept income inequality if it is a consequence of participation in the real sector of the national economy. The enrichment of an insignificant part of the population in power, in the face of a decline in domestic production, rising unemployment, redistribution of already low incomes in favor of rich social strata, causes a sharply negative reaction from the majority of the population.
In Russia, as in most post-socialist countries, differentiation in the incomes of the population has reached unprecedented proportions. Tab. 13 makes it possible, to a certain extent, to compare data on income differentiation before and after Russia's perestroika and to see its place in this process.
As can be seen from the table. 13 data, the worst changes in income differentiation indicators occurred as a result of the transformation of the socialist system in Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine.
When the national economy is on the rise, then we are talking about the distribution of the increase in national income among different groups of the population. Of course, this problem is solved more easily than in the conditions of a decline in production. During periods of economic crises and a sharp reduction in the production of national income, a more complex and socially responsible task arises - how to distribute losses in national income among specific social groups.
Table 13
Income inequality in transition economies
| Gini coefficient (per capita income)* | ||
| 1987-1988 | 1993-1995 | |
| Kyrgyzstan | 26 | 55 |
| Russia | 24 | 48 |
| Ukraine | 23 | 47 |
| Lithuania | 23 | 37 |
| Moldova | 24 | 36 |
| Turkmenistan | 26 | 36 |
| Estonia | 23 | 34 |
| Bulgaria | 23 | 34 |
| Kazakhstan | 26 | 33 |
| Uzbekistan | 28 | 33 |
| Lithuania | 23 | 31 |
| Romania | 23 | 29 |
| Poland | 26 | 28 |
| Czech | 19 | 27 |
| Slovenia | 22 | 25 |
| Hungary | 21 | 23 |
| Slovakia | 20 | 19 |
| * For most countries, data is for 1987-1989. characterize the gross income; 1993-1995 - net disposable income. | ||
Source". Questions of Economics. 1999. No. 1. P. 67
An objective assessment of the distribution of losses in the national income indicates that this problem has been solved in Russia in the interests of a small social group by impoverishing the majority of the country's population (Table 14).
In 1995-2000 almost half of all cash income was appropriated in Russia by the fifth 20 percent group of the population. If we consider the incomes of this group in detail, it turns out that most of its incomes account for no more than 2-5% of their number.
It is impossible not to notice the presence of a very significant differentiation in the incomes of the population that took place in 1970-1980. stagnation.
At the same time, there are significant differences in the social differentiation of the population of modern and Russia during the years of stagnation. If in the pre-perestroika years the subsistence minimum was available to the lowest paid segments of the population of Russia, then in 1999-2000. about a third of the total population of the country (29.1% in 2000) had incomes below the subsistence level.
The financial crisis of 1998 had ambiguous consequences for the socio-economic development of Russia. Loss of savings by the population of the country, depreciation of the ruble and growth consumer prices led to a decline in living standards and the purchasing power of the majority of the population. The appreciation of the dollar caused by the financial crisis contributed to the growth of the national economy. However, the economic recovery was held back by limited solvent demand.
Table 14
Distribution of total cash income of the population of Russia, (in %)*
| 1970 | 1980 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2001 | |
| total cash income Including for 20 percent population groups: | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| first (lowest income) | 7.8 | 10,1 | 9,8 | 11,9 | 6,0 | 5,8 | 6,0 | 6,1 | 6,1 | 6,0 |
| second | 14.8 | 14,8 | 14,9 | 15,8 | H.6 | 11,1 | 10,2 | 10,4 | 10,4 | 10,4 |
| third | 18,0 | 18,6 | 18,8 | 18,8 | 17,6 | 16,7 | 14,8 | 14,8 | 14,7 | 14,8 |
| fourth | 22,6 | 23,13 | 23,83 | 22,8 | 26,5 | 24,8 | 21,6 | 21,1 | 20,5 | 21,2 |
| fifth (highest income) Gini coefficient (income concentration index) | 36,8 | 3,4 | 2,7 | 30,7 | 38,3 | 41,6 | 47,4 | 47,6 | 47,9 | 47,6 |
| * Until 1993 - total income (taking into account the value of the net output of personal subsidiary farms population. | ||||||||||
Source". Russian Statistical Yearbook. M.: Goskomstat of Russia, 2001. P. 187.
Consider the functions and methods of state redistribution of income.
Market mechanisms inevitably lead to the concentration of monetary income among social groups that make up the minority of the country's population. In principle, differences in income are a consequence of the unequal labor contribution to the creation of a country's monetary income. At the same time, social differences in income and living standards act as an incentive to achieve cost-effective results in labor and the transition to a higher social group in terms of living standards.
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that social differentiation is not only the result of an unequal labor contribution to the country's national income. IN modern society There are many other reasons for getting rich and belonging to social groups with the highest amount of money income, not related to labor participation"for the sake of the whole society." In one of his latest works, J.K. Galbraith points to some sources of unearned income that contribute to differentiation in the incomes of the population. “A large part of the income and wealth goes to people without sufficient or no social justification, for nothing or almost nothing in terms of contribution to the economy. An obvious example is inheritance. Other examples of a similar order are various donations, random successes and financial manipulations. This also includes the rewards that the leaders of modern companies generously endow themselves with the powers granted to them.
Increase the degree of differentiation such incomes of the population, not related to labor costs, as rent from an administrative position, embezzlement of state budget funds, etc.
Under the influence of a combination of factors, the degree of social differentiation can reach limits, overcoming which can significantly aggravate the economic and social situation in the country.
IN educational literature the economic function of the state redistribution of income is underestimated. The essence of the economic function of income redistribution in a market economy is the possibility of achieving a balance between production and consumption, i.e. between supply and demand. The state redistribution of monetary income in favor of social groups with medium and low income contributes to the achievement of a macroeconomic balance between production and consumption. The balance of supply and demand acts as one of the main factors for the effective functioning of the country's economy, preventing economic crises or soften them Negative influence. So, according to the calculations of Russian economists special role The dynamics of consumer demand played a role in shaping Russia's economic growth in 2000. In 2000, the growth in real disposable income of the population accounted for 21% of the country's industrial growth. This factor became the second most important after the growth rate of exports (70%)*.
World experience shows that “a wider and more even distribution of income is the most appropriate from the point of view of economic development, as it ensures a more stable total demand. And therefore, there is every reason to believe that the more unevenly distributed incomes, the less functional load they bear.
There are many forms and methods of maintaining uniformity in the distribution of income. “However, the most effective tool achieving a more equal distribution of income remains a progressive income tax. It is she who plays the most important role in ensuring a reasonable and, one might say, civilized distribution of income.”
The redistribution of income through state financing of social sectors (education, health care, art, culture) and the free provision of social services to the population contains not only social but also economic functions. The commercialization of education and healthcare makes services in these areas inaccessible to low-income social groups. In conditions of increasing importance in the effective economic growth of human capital, the national economy incurs huge economic losses in such a situation. Availability of education and healthcare for medium- and low-paid families through budget financing of these services, with
On the one hand, it solves problems of a purely economic nature, on the other hand, it contributes to the implementation of the principle of social equality. /
Purely social function The state redistribution of income can be recognized as the provision of monetary and various kinds of other assistance to the disabled, orphans, to everyone who, due to the prevailing conditions, needs state assistance in the most minimal amount.
A special place is occupied by labor pensions. It would be misleading to classify them as purely social assistance. Labor pensions are a payment to a person for the contribution he made throughout his working life to the creation of the national income of his country. This kind social service The state is of economic importance: how much and how pensioners are paid for their long-term work depends on the nature of employment and the activity of generations following pensioners.
The state has many forms and methods of income redistribution. It is quite clear that the possibilities of redistribution are determined by the total national income of the country. If the real sector of the country's economy does not work or the country's economic growth rates are insignificant, then the revenue part of the state budget is small, and the state's expenditures are limited by these revenues. The problem of income redistribution is aggravated by the country's huge external debt.
Popular
- Production of milk, dairy products
- Encyclopedia of Marketing. FMCG - what is it? The FMCG market and its marketing secrets What does fmcg mean
- Halva production and its types
- Working from home for retirees: ideas and analysis Maintaining a YouTube channel
- Earnings on YouTube for views Income on YouTube from 1000
- Warren Buffett Family Values: How to Raise Children Properly What kind of team does Warren Buffett have
- Where to get start-up capital for a business
- How to name a company: examples of names
- Making money in Sims
- How to make money while traveling How to make money while traveling