Trust of Socially Vulnerable Groups on Criminal Justice System of Pakistan

The present research analyzed the trust of juvenile and women prisoners in the criminal justice system of Pakistan with a focus upon the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of justice institutions for procedural and distributive fairness. Data were collected from both under-trial and convicted juvenile and women prisoners from Borstal Institute and District Jail Faisalabad respectively. Although larger proportions of the respondents recognized and accepted the authority of various justice institutions for rule of law, a significant number of respondents viewed that justice institutions protect the interests of powerful people and do not represent moral authority. Police lacked the trust of the respondents for procedural fairness in terms of respect, impartiality, and fair treatment. However, courts have been trusted for impartiality and fair treatment compared to police and other justice institutions. The logistic results indicated educational attainment, age, prison status, and income level differently influenced experiences of the prisoners towards procedural and distributive fairness of justice institutions. Younger, illiterate, and under-trial prisoners with relatively low household income levels had low perceived legitimacy of justice institutions and less trust in the criminal justice system. Low scoring on socio-economic variables seemed to be related to increased vulnerability of the prisoners, in turn, less trust in the criminal justice system.

Equality, Reciprocity, or Need? Mitigating Ethnocentric Bias in Policy Evaluation with Distributive Fairness

The literature on welfare chauvinism shows that ethnocentrism reduces support for outgroup redistribution. To limit bias, scholarship suggests framing policies universally or addressing beneficiary deservingness. However, policies to support disadvantaged groups and ensure equity cannot always be framed in universal terms. Moreover, dominant groups often hold minoritized groups to a deservingness double standard. Thus, we ask: what are effective ways of mollifying ethnocentric bias in policy evaluation? We argue that principles of distributive justice -- normative justifications for who should get what and why -- can reduce ethnocentric bias. We test through three experiments in Slovakia and with the Roma as the outgroup. Frames using the distributive principle of reciprocity reduce ethnocentric bias amongst majorities; conversely, frames centered around the principle of need garner minority support. Given salient anti-Roma prejudice, we consider our findings a floor. For less stigmatized outgroups, reciprocity frames may bolster support for redistributive policies even further.

Reconceptualising fair access to highly academically selective universities

The higher education regulator for England has set challenging new widening access targets requiring universities to rethink how merit is judged in admissions. Universities are being encouraged to move away from the traditional meritocratic equality of opportunity model of fair access, which holds that university places should go to the most highly qualified candidates irrespective of social background, in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. Instead, they are being asked to move towards what we term the meritocratic equity of opportunity model, which holds that prospective students’ qualifications should be judged in light of the socioeconomic circumstances in which these were obtained to enhance distributive fairness, a practice known in the UK as contextualised admissions. In this paper, we critically discuss the theoretical underpinnings of these two competing perspectives on fair access and review the existing empirical evidence base, drawing together for the first time insights from our ESRC and Nuffield Foundation funded studies of fair access to highly academically selective universities in England. We argue that reconceptualising fair access in terms of distributive fairness rather than procedural fairness offers a more socially just set of principles on which to allocate valuable but scarce places at the most academically selective universities in England, unless or until such time as the vertical stratification of higher education institutions is reduced or eliminated entirely.

The Impact of Social Capital on Residents’ Supportive Attitude to Tourism Development: The Mediation Role of Perception of Justice

Based on social capital theory and fairness theory, the study proposes a residents’ supportive attitudes influencing model, with social capital as the antecedent variable, and the perception of justice as mediator. An empirical research was conducted on residents of three well-known island tourist destinations in Zhejiang Province, China, a total of 620 questionnaires were distributed in the three regions. The results of data analysis show that the perception of distributive justice and procedural justice is positively influenced by social capital; it has a positive impact on distributive fairness and residents’ support. Distributive justice has a positive impact on the supportive attitudes of residents. In addition, the mediation effect of distributive justice and procedural justice between social capital and the supportive attitude of residents has been supported. The theoretical contribution and practical value of this research have also been discussed.

Fairness and behavioral intentions in discrete B2B transactions: a study of small business firms

Purpose While studies about business-to-business (B2B) relationships have mainly addressed buyer–supplier long-term exchanges, focusing on social outcomes such as trust, commitment and cooperation, there is little research that explores the social outcomes which stem from short-term B2B transactions. The purpose of this paper is to explain buyers’ intention to renew a contract after discrete and time-delimited transactions by suggesting a model that complements social exchange theory with theories of fairness. In detail, this study aims to determine how evaluations of economic and social outcomes are complemented by both procedural fairness and distributive fairness. Design/methodology/approach The hypotheses are tested in the social couponing industry with a survey of a sample of 199 firms purchasing advertising services from daily deal websites. Data are analyzed using covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM). Findings The findings reveal direct effects of procedural fairness on social outcomes (satisfaction) and distributive fairness on the intention to renew a contract, negative moderating effect of procedural fairness on the relationship between economic outcomes (campaign effectiveness) and social outcomes (satisfaction). Research limitations/implications In discrete, time-delimited transactions, high levels of procedural fairness may partially compensate for low levels of economic outcomes and prevent a reduction in social outcomes. Hence, when economic outcomes are influenced largely by external, uncontrollable conditions, the buyer seems to appreciate the supplier’s efforts to behave fairly. Practical implications Social outcomes matter even in discrete transactions and considerations of fairness should be integrated in the management of discrete transactions. Sharing economic outcomes fairly is not sufficient to secure the buyer’s intention to renew the contract. Originality/value This study proposes and tests a model that complements social exchange theory with theories of fairness and explains contract renewal in discrete, time-delimited transactions, encompassing both economic outcomes and social outcomes.

Relational Equality Between Age Groups

This chapter makes the case that synchronic equality can have value beyond its derivative impact on complete-lives equality and lifespan prudence. It proposes to draw on relational egalitarianism to explain what is wrong with a variety of intuitively troubling cases of synchronic inequality. While reasons of distributive fairness naturally give traction to the diachronic approach, there is no such pull to focus on complete lives when approaching inequalities relationally. Relational reasons can thus explain our reluctance to accept some troubling cases of synchronic inequalities better than competing views. When deciding whether an inequality between young and old is acceptable, the chapter argues, their relationships should be investigated for hierarchies in status, standing, respect, and power. The synchronic relational principle proposed in this chapter illuminates important social issues that have been under-discussed by philosophers—as illustrated by the case of infantilization by age—and has important policy implications.

The Influence of Empathy on Moral Judgments

Empathy is expected to correlate with pro-social attitude s, but what effect does empathy have on judgments of distributive fairness? In our study, we found that participants with higher empathy scores on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) were more likely to: (a) favor the use of egalitarian distribution when the joint effort is involved, and (b) deem overly self-interested or opportunistic behavior unfair. Female participants were more consistent in the exercise of moral judgments across diverse scenarios. Furthermore, empathy has several dimensions (e.g., perspective-taking or empathetic concern) and we observed that they interacted with gender and the nature of the hypothetical problem differently in some cases. Although the findings of the study are not counterintuitive, it has identified some avenues for further explorations and highlighted some potential methodological shortcomings of the IRI as a measure of empathetic traits.

Operationalization of Interorganizational Fairness in Food Systems: From a Social Construct to Quantitative Indicators

Fairness issues within food systems are of increasing concern for policy makers and other stakeholders. Given the topicality and policy relevance of fairness within food systems, there is value in exploring the subject further. Simulation modelling has been successfully used to develop and test policy interventions. However, the subjectivity and intangibleness of fairness perceptions make them difficult to operationalize in a quantitative model. The objective of this study is to facilitate research on fairness in food systems using simulation modelling by defining the social construct of fairness in model operational terms. The operationalization is conducted in two steps. First, the construct of fairness is conceptually defined in terms of its dimensions, antecedents, and consequences using the literature on interorganizational fairness. Then, by focusing specifically on fairness issues within food systems, the conceptual definition is used as a basis for the identification of proxy indicators of fairness. Seven groups of factors related to fairness perceptions were identified during the conceptualization phase: financial outcomes, operational outcomes, power, environmental stability, information sharing, relationship quality, and controls. From these factor groups, five indicators of fairness that are operational in a quantitative model were identified: profit margin as an indicator of distributive fairness and four indicators of procedural fairness related to market power and bargaining power.