Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Fernando Aguiar (a1), Alice Becker (a2) and Luis Miller (a3)

We present an experiment designed to investigate three different mechanisms to achieve impartiality in distributive justice. We consider a first-person procedure, inspired by the Rawlsian veil of ignorance, and two third-party procedures, an involved spectator and a detached observer. First-person veiled stakeholders and involved spectators are affected by an initially unfair distribution that, in the stakeholders’ case, is to be redressed. We find substantial differences in the redressing task. Detached observers propose significantly fairer redistributions than veiled stakeholders or involved spectators. Risk preferences partly explain why veiled stakeholders propose less egalitarian redistributions. Surprisingly, involved spectators, who are informed about their position in society, tend to favour stakeholders holding the same position as they do after the initial distribution.

Hide All
Alesina, A. and Giuliano, P.. 2011. Preferences for redistribution. In Handbook of Social Economics, ed. Benhabib, J., Bisin, A. and Jackson, M., 93131. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Amiel, Y., Cowell, F. and Gaertner, W.. 2009. To be or not to be involved: a questionnaire-experimental view on Harsanyi's utilitarian ethics. Social Choice and Welfare 32: 299316.
Barr, A., Burns, J., Miller, L. and Shaw, I.. 2011. Individual's notions of distributed justice and relative economic status. IFS Working Paper Series 11/19.
Barry, B. 1995. Justice as Impartiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Becker, A. and Miller, L.. 2009. Promoting justice by treating people unequally: an experimental study. Experimental Economics 12: 437449.
Chavanne, D., McCabe, K. and Paganelli, M.. 2010. Shared experience and third-party decisions: a laboratory result. Available at SSRN: Retrieved 24 July 2012.
Croson, R. and Konow, J.. 2009. Social preferences and moral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 69: 202212.
Dasgupta, N. 2004. Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research 17: 143169.
Devos, Th., and Banaji, M.. 2005. Implicit self and identity. In Handbook of Self and Identity, ed. Leary, M. and Tangney, J., 153178. New York: Guilford Press.
Dohmen, Th., Falk, A., Human, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J. and Wagner, G.. 2011. Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association 9 (3): 522550.
Dworkin, R. 2002. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Firth, R. 1952. Ethical absolutism and the Ideal Observer. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research XII: 317345.
Fischbacher, U. 2007. Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10: 171178.
Freeman, S. 2012. Original Position. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), ed. Zalta, E. N..
Frohlich, N. and Oppenheimer, J.. 1992. Choosing Justice. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Greiner, B. 2004. An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In: Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen. GWDG Bericht 63: 7993.
Harsanyi, J. 1953. Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk taking. Journal of Political Economy 61: 434435.
Harsanyi, J. 1955. Cardinal welfare, individualist ethics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy 63: 309321.
Herne, K. and Suojanen, M.. 2004. The role of information in choices over income distribution. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48: 173193.
Jollimore, T. 2011. Impartiality. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), ed. E. N. Zalta.
Konow, J. 2008. The moral high ground: an experimental study of Spectator Impartiality. Mimeo.
Konow, J. 2009. Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An Impartial Spectator analysis of justice. Social Choice and Welfare 33: 101127.
Liebrand, W. 1984. The effect of social motives, communication and group sizes on behavior in an n-person multi stage mixed motive game. European Journal of Social Psychology 14: 239264.
Michelbach, P., Scott, J., Matland, R. and Bornstein, B.. 2003. Doing Rawls justice: an experimental study of income distribution norms. American Journal of Political Science 47: 523539.
Offermann, T., Sonnemans, J. and Schram, A.. 1996. Value orientations, expectations and voluntary contributions in public goods. Economic Journal 106: 817845.
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Roemer, J. 2002. Egalitarianism against the Veil of Ignorance. Journal of Philosophy XCIX 4: 167184.
Scanlon, T. 1998. What We Owe to each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scott, J., Matland, R., Michelbach, P. and Bornstein, B.. 2001. Just deserts: an experimental study of distributive justice norms. American Journal of Political Science 45: 749767.
Selten, R. 1967. Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschrankt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments. In Beitrage zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. I, ed. Sauermann, Heinz, 136168. Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck).
Sen, A. 2002. Open and Closed Impartiality. Journal of Philosophy XCIX: 445469.
Smith, A. 1976 [1759]. Theory of the Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tajfel, H. 1970. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American 223: 96102.
Traub, S., Seidl, C., Schmidt, U. and Levati, M.. 2005. Friedman, Harsanyi, Rawls, Boulding – or somebody else? Social Choice and Welfare 24: 283309.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed