Skip to main content

Distributive Justice, Legitimizing Collective Choice Procedures, and the Production of Normative Equilibria in Social Groups: Towards a Theory of Social Order

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Outlooks and Insights on Group Decision and Negotiation (GDN 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 218))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1169 Accesses

Abstract.

This paper focuses on group normative procedures and distributional norms that are utilized in functioning groups in the production/generation of normative equilibria, that is, the major basis of social order in groups and communities. The group is an organizational arrangement with some degree of division of labor and characterized by group purposes and goals, a normative order and patterns of interaction and output. We identified three patterns of particular interest: (1) legitimation procedures in groups to resolve conflicts and make collective choices; (2) patterns of just outcomes satisfying the normatively prescribed group outcomes/outputs of a principle of distributive justice’s; (3) normative equilibria, which are group patterns of interaction or collective decision that tend to stability because they satisfy or realize one or more key group norms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The theory of fair division among a group of individuals was initiated in the 1940s by three Polish mathematicians: Hugo Steinhaus, Bronisław Knaster and Stefan Banach. Brams and Taylor [2] give a historical introduction of fair division and provide a detailed discussion of many procedures.

References

  1. Brams, S.J., Edelman, P.H., Fishburn, P.C.: Paradoxes of Fair Division. Economic Research Reports C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics Department of Economics Faculty of Arts and Science New York University. New York University, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brams, S.J., Taylor, A.D.: Fair Division: From Cake-cutting to Dispute Resolution. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Burns, T.R., Caldas, J.C., Roszkowska, E.: Generalized game theory’s contribution to multi-agent modelling: addressing problems of social regulation, social order, and effective security. In: Dunin-Keplicz, B., et al. (eds.) Monitoring, Security and Rescue Techniques in Multiagent Systems. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burns, T.R., Corte, U., Machado, N.: Toward a Universal Theory of the Human Group: Sociological Systems Framework Applied to the Comparative Analysis of Groups and Organizations. CIES/ISCTE WP, Lisbon (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Burns, T.R., Flam, H.: The Shaping of Social Organization: Social Rule System Theory with Applications. Sage Publications, London (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burns, T.R., Gomolińska, A.: The theory of socially embedded games: the mathematics of social relationships, rule complexes, and action modalities. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 34(4), 379–406 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burns, T., Machado, N., Roszkowska, E.: Distributive justice: from steinhaus, knaster, and banach to elster and rawls: the perspective of sociological game theory. Stud. Log. Gramm. Rhetoric 37(50), 11–38 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Burns, T., Roszkowska, E.: A social procedural approach to the pareto optimization problematique: part I: pareto optimization and its limitations versus the GGT conception of the solution of multi-value conflict problems through societal procedures. Qual. Quant. 43(5), 781–803 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burns, T., Roszkowska, E.: A social procedural approach to the pareto optimization problematique: part II. institutionalized procedures and their limitation. Qual. Quant. 43(5), 805–832 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burns, T.R., Roszkowska, E.: Fuzzy games and equilibria: the perspective of the general theory of games on nash and normative equilibria. In: Pal, S.K., Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (eds.) Rough-Neural Computing. Techniques for Computing with Words, pp. 435–470. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Burns, T.R., Roszkowska, E.: Social judgment in multi-agent systems: the perspective of generalized game theory. In: Sun, Ron (ed.) Cognition and Multi-agent Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Burns, T.R., Roszkowska, E.: Multi-value decision-making and games: the perspective of generalized game theory on social and psychological complexity, contradiction, and equilibrium. In: Shi, Y. (ed.) Advances in Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Human Systems Management. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chapman, B.: Law games: defeasible rules and revisable rationality. Law Philos. 17, 443–480 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chapman, B.: More easily done than said: rules, reasons and rational social choice. Oxf. J. Leg. Stud. 18, 293–329 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Elster, J.: Fairness and norms. Soc. Res. 73(2), 365–376 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gomolińska, A.: Rule complexes for representing social actors and interactions. Stud. Logic Gramm. Rhetoric 3(16), 95–108 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gomoliska, A.: Fundamental mathematical notions of the theory of socially embedded games: a granular computing perspective. In: Pal, S.K., Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. (eds.) Rough-Neural Computing: Techniques for Computing with Words, pp. 411–434. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Keeney, R.L.: Foundations for group decision analysis. Decis. Anal. 10(2), 103–120 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Roszkowska, E., Burns, T.: Fuzzy bargaining games: conditions of agreement satisfaction equilibrium. Group Decis. Negot. 19(5), 421–440 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rawls, J.: A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press, Cambridge (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Steinhaus, H.: The problem of fair division. Econometrica 16, 101–104 (1948)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by the grant from Polish National Science Centre (DEC-2011/03/B/HS4/03857).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ewa Roszkowska .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Burns, T., Machado, N., Roszkowska, E. (2015). Distributive Justice, Legitimizing Collective Choice Procedures, and the Production of Normative Equilibria in Social Groups: Towards a Theory of Social Order. In: Kamiński, B., Kersten, G., Szapiro, T. (eds) Outlooks and Insights on Group Decision and Negotiation. GDN 2015. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 218. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19514-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19515-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics