Talk:Economic justice

Why is this separate?
It's really odd, don't you think, that economists might have a separate page of their own on justice? I think this should be deleted and the content put into the Justice page. Moreover, there isn't much on this page telling us what economists might think justice means, and why that's different to anybody else. My guess is, it isn't. You'd be thinking about distributive justice most of the time.  Wik idea  10:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The following paragraphs are numbered for ease of reference if that should be necessary.
 * 1. Contrary to the above, the point is not that economists "have a separate page of their own on justice." It's that justice within economics  is treated there as a subcategory of welfare economics and so represented in the article (1st paragraph of Justice (economics)).  Lots of other subjects in economics have Wiki articles.  That does not mean that they should be collapsed into other Wiki articles with a non-economic focus on the same subject.


 * 2. Telling readers "what economists might think justice means" (above) is certainly not what the article is about. Rather the 2nd sentence of the article indicates that the subject is exposited with (economic) "models representing the ethical requirements or rules of a given theory." That is the unifying theme of what follows & a differentiating characteristic from other approaches.


 * 3. Distributive justice is certainly an implied subject as to models referred to in the article, but note in the References section the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles on "Economics and Economic Justice" and "Distributive Justice".  So, there is no undue redundancy in Wiki articles in that respect.


 * 4. Most of Justice has philosophical treatments and References to the subject.  Transferring the text of "Justice (economics)" to Justice would make it an odd section out.  And the annotated econ References would be diluted.  Some material in Justice would be repeated, presumably requiring deletions (thereby  losing the relation of the material to an economic treatment) or redundancy.  The thematic divisions of Justice sections would be undermined by importing the text from this article. In that context, such importation would make it a  mishmash relative the rest of the article.    There are advantages of disciplinary specialization that a separate economic treatment provides & oollapsing this article into Justice would defeat. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I share Wikidea's main concern above, i.e. that this article appears mostly to be about distributive justice and could be a POV fork unless reworked to be something else. Justice in economics has its source in the work of thinkers such as John Locke who considered just a system which allowed for fair competition, rather than arbitrarily-defined fair results. This justice implies equal opportunity, and equality before the law. The results (allocation of ressources) of such a fair system could thus not be considered just or unjust because they are simply the output of justice. See for instance John W. Chapman, or even early John Rawls. In economics, the conception of justice has gone through an important change of signification (the evolution of the thought of John Rawls is a good illustration of this). As best illustrated by Frank Knight in the ref given above, "The most important statement to be made about the concept of justice is that its meaning has been radically expanded and transformed by the advent of modern liberal, politically equalitarian democracy... As a result, the concept of justice now covers social idealism in all aspects and all versions and so cannot be defined in positive and specific terms". --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 5. Actually, contrary to the first sentence above, Wikidea's main concern, I believe, is better expressed by the heading of this section, which Wikidea selected. On distributive justice, see (3) above. On the article as POV fork, see (2) above.  I don't believe that the article is so now ((2) again). Nor are the scholarly references in the article. Vigilance is of course appropriate to keep it from so becoming.  The Knight quotation above certainly does not apply to all economic treatments of the subject.  Nor is it appropriate to read welfare economics, which includes economic treatments of justice, out of economics, on the theory that if it is not positive economics, it's not economics. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A POV fork need not be one article copy-pasted to another, so two articles with different words and refs can still be POV forks. I'm saying, in like with Wikidea, that this article is very limited in scope to distributive justice and that unless expanded, it looks like a POV fork of distributive justice. I of course agree that justice in economics and distributive justice can be different subjects. But the Knight quote above should point you towards an important consideration that should be ackowledged here. --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (5) above has already attempted to respond to points reiterated immediately above. Here are some additional elaborations or points on the immediately above.

6. The above does not explain how per (3) above the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy could have 2 distinct articles ("Distributive Justice" and "Economics and Economic Justice"). The separate entries with distinct content satisfies WP:VER and establishes a reasonable presumption of no POV fork. It is reasonable to accept the professional judgement of the editors for that standard reference work with articles by professional scholars on their topics.

7. As noted in Justice (economics) (4th sent.) the Journal of Economic Literature classification codes 'justice' is at JEL: D63, not 'distributive justice' there or elsewhere in the codes. (3) acknowledges that distributive justice is contained within the subject matter of the article. The above claims that "article is very limited in scope to distributive justice and that unless expanded, it looks like a POV fork of distributive justice." This ignores the generality of the material (skeletal though it is) in every paragraph of Justice (economics). To be sure, the broadest reading of 'distributive justice' could make it coincident with the article content and by the same reasoning for 'justice' itself, wherever used. But that usage is not necessary or standard. By the same prescriptive a priorism, Rawls's A Theory of Justice could be considered only about 'distributive justice'. The index reveals otherwise (15 pp. listed for that term). 'Justice' is a more comprehensive term and is significantly more widely used in economics, important though the content of 'distributive justice is'.

8. As for the content of Justice (economics), it is well documented as to references within the text. I believe a more secure way to proceed is to shape Wiki articles around sources and methods, preferably general WP:VER sources rather the a priori boxes that less adquately reflect current usage as to theory within a acholarly discipline.

9. The last 2 sentences of (5) continue to apply. I doubt that Knight would write those words (which come across as global obiter dicta rather than a say theorem) today about this article or the references therein. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remind WP:OWN, as your answers and this article's history point towards an ownership attitude. No matter how long your comments are, they little address the issue raised herein and show ignorance of the criticism made. I do understand that distributive justice and justice (economics) should be different topics, so you do not need to explain this further. I'll try to help if I can find some time. From my perspective, if this article would address: i-what is/was justice as an economic concept according to thinkers before the now prevalent Kelsen followers; and ii- the renewed interest in the Rule of Law showed nowadays by the litterature in economics; it would start to have a perspective large enough to be considered something else than a fork of welfare economics or distributive justice. Right now, Wikidea's comment above remains much relevant. --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (add)Just to be clearer, I do not deny your right to disagree with the criticisms made about this article, and I agree it may not be your fault if practically no other editor than yourself has edited it since you created it.
 * Only, your disagreements with the critics so far are limited to a lot of argumentum verbosium, which usually indicate a systematic refusal behavior. I may be wrong of course. Anyway, I'll try to help add material to the article since I dont want to only complain. --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 10. On the above (re)assertion of the article as a "fork [presumably a WP:CFORK] of welfare economics or distributive justice"  (1st para. of 3, 2nd to last sent.), (7) above argues that the aricle is not a fork of 'distributive justice'. Neither is the article a fork of welfare economics. Rather 'justice' falls in a subcategory of Welfare Economics in  the JEL classification codes, JEL: D63 & is so treated in this article.  Of course, the article must not be written as a fork.


 * 11. Not to belabor the obvious, but no one should spend time on this Talk page except in the hope that it might clarify or improve the article through discussion, within Talk page guidelines. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Template added today and later blanked
I blanked the template recently added to this page because it seemed to me to be potentially highly contentious. There should be a good reason for adding this kind of template because there are already categories and related links as a way of getting further information.

I'd be grateful if editors would take a look at the template as it was before I delted it and also at the discussion I started at the template's talk page and provide some feedback.

I just have a sense that visuality of the template and some of the subcategories could have had a politically unbalanced presentation not in the spirit of Wikipedia. For instance the linking with articles about the negative side of the welfare state (fraud, dependency, etc.) without equal linking to articles on the positive side (alleviation of stress, social cohesion, etc.). Also some of the articles where the template was placed seem to me to have very little to do with the welfare state per se. --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What is this?
I can't read the first sentence and tell what economic justice is. Something is wrong with the article at a conceptual level as others have pointed out. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Benjamin (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * +1 Is it possible there is two usages? One definition in academia and a different definition used by politicians/pundits? Here is one definition "....Economic justice is the idea that the economy will be more successful if it is fairer: that prosperity and justice go hand-in-hand rather than in opposition to one another...." https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/09/what-economic-justice-and-why-does-it-matter


 * Here is another definition: "Economic justice is a component of social justice. It is a set of moral principles for building economic institutions, the ultimate goal of which is to create an opportunity for each person to create a sufficient material foundation upon which to have a dignified, productive, and creative life."
 * https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-justice.asp  JayR (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Economics of Social Justice and Injustice
— Assignment last updated by WCSUEconProf (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What is economic justice?
There should be a section that clearly explains what this is. Economic justice should be explained in more detail and this will give the readers a better idea of what it is. Gonzalez286 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)