引用
薪資所得公平分配判斷原則及其相關因素
Distributive Justice and Earned Income
作者：王德睦（Te-Mu Wang）、蔡勇美（Yung-Mei Tsai）、王篤強（Duu-Chiang Wang）、呂朝賢（Chao-Hsien Lu） | 首次發表於 2020-07-19 | 第 22 期 October 1999
DOI：https://dx.doi.org/10.6786/TJS.199910.0047
研究論文（Research Articles）
DOI：https://dx.doi.org/10.6786/TJS.199910.0047
研究論文（Research Articles）
論文資訊 | Article information
摘要 Abstract
文獻上指出，評斷分配公平與否的原則大致有三，分別是公正原則、平等原則、與需求原則。而人們運用那一原則以衡量公平，會受到個人特質、資源類型、所屬社群關係、以及不同的社會文化所影響。不過在我們研究中，我們所討論的資源將僅限於薪資所得，並以此衡量整個社會薪資所得的分配是否公平。此外，文獻還指出，在經濟性資源分配上，人們慣用公正原則爲主。因此，我們參考Alves、Rossi與Jasso等人所使用的方法，在略加修正後，以隨機方式設計出虛擬家戶、與虛擬個人，讓受訪者評估其薪資所得的公平性，希望能以此一方面探索、再方面也比較，台灣民眾是否也如國外文獻所述般，男性較以公正原則、女性較以需求原則評斷薪資所得的公平性；以及其運用不同原則的影響因素。而我們主要的發現有：
1.台灣民眾衡量薪資所得分配公平與否的主要原則是「需求原則」，「公正原則」則爲相對較不重要原則。
2.教育程度高、白領職業者較強調「公正原則」女性、教育程度低、藍領職業者較強調「需求原則」。
關鍵字：公平分配、公正原則、平等原則、需求原則
1.台灣民眾衡量薪資所得分配公平與否的主要原則是「需求原則」，「公正原則」則爲相對較不重要原則。
2.教育程度高、白領職業者較強調「公正原則」女性、教育程度低、藍領職業者較強調「需求原則」。
關鍵字：公平分配、公正原則、平等原則、需求原則
Literature suggests three principles in evaluating distributive justice of social resources: those based on equity, equality, and need principle. How individuals use these principles in their interpretations of distributive justice depend on a number factors: their personal characteristics, types of social resources being considered subjects or group be evaluated. Although we include all spectrums of people in the society as our subjects, we limit our investigation of social resources to individuals' earned income only. The distributive justice literature indicates that when come to economic resources, people tend to use the equity principle. To test this, we randomly constructed dummy households and individuals and ask our respondents whether given these households' and individuals' characteristics, the income they received were just or not. The literature further points our that: (1) men are more likely to use equity principle while women tend to prefer need principle; and (2) high income and high occupational status individuals are likely to use equity principle while married with children individuals tend to stress the need principle. Whether and to what extent these differential usages of distributive justice principle are also differential usages among our Taiwanese respondents. We have adopted and modified American scholars, Alves, Rossi, and Jasso's design to the Taiwanese situation partially to test the cross-cultural applicability of their design and techniques. The followings are the main findings of the present study:
1. In evaluating the distributive justice of earned incomes, our respondents are more likely to use the need principle than the equity principle as the basis of their judgment.
2. In evaluating the distributive justice of earned Incomes, those more highly educated, white collar respondents are more likely to use equity principle while those female, or less educated, or blue collar respondents are more likely to use need principle in the basis of their judgment.
Keywords: distributive justice, equity principle, equality principle, need principle
1. In evaluating the distributive justice of earned incomes, our respondents are more likely to use the need principle than the equity principle as the basis of their judgment.
2. In evaluating the distributive justice of earned Incomes, those more highly educated, white collar respondents are more likely to use equity principle while those female, or less educated, or blue collar respondents are more likely to use need principle in the basis of their judgment.
Keywords: distributive justice, equity principle, equality principle, need principle
