Relation between Social Policy and Social Justice

The purpose of this blog is to promote engagement between theories surrounding the concept of social justice and the practical policy issues, to aid students in understanding the various conceptions of social justice used to formulate social policies, and to further develop understanding of the crucial links between social values and practical policies.

The information in this blog post will assist the readers in learning about:

Social injustices and inequities, as well as the many methods for addressing them
Specifying the objectives of social justice and how they relate to social policies.
The criticisms leveled against social justice

Content

Introduction
Defining Social Justice
Theories of Social Justice
Social justice and Equality
Linkages between Social Justice and Social Protection

Introduction

Clarifying human requirements for health and well-being is greatly aided by concepts of justice. Policies that support the health and financial requirements of children, families, individuals with disabilities, and the elderly face ongoing challenges from such fundamental socioeconomic problems as inequality, poverty, and prejudice. In order to properly examine social policy, this blog seeks to help students comprehend and apply various theoretical perspectives on social justice. Additionally, it examines the idea of equality and how it pertains to the debate over social justice. The connections between social justice and social protection will also serve as a foundation for understanding how social justice affects policy frameworks and how it might empower the weak.

Defining Social Justice

Social justice is frequently equated with fairness and is rooted in the concepts of equality. In order to "promote a just society by opposing injustice and appreciating diversity," one must practice social justice. "All persons share a shared humanity and consequently have a right to equitable treatment, support for their human rights, and a fair allocation of communal resources," according to the definition of equality. People "shall not be discriminated against, nor shall their welfare and well-being be restricted or prejudiced on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliations, age, race, belief, disability, location, social class, socioeconomic circumstances, or other characteristic of background or group membership" (United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1948).

Theories of Social Justice

John Rawls was one of the pioneers of social justice who published a book named ‘A theory of justice’, where he identified some key principles of justice such as:

Each person is entitled to the most extensive set of basic liberties which is in line with the liberty of all.
Any position of public responsibility or private advantage must be open to all based on a fair equality of opportunity.
Inequality in the distribution of primary goods such as income and wealth among other things may only be permissible if it serves to give advantage to the weakest sections in society.

According to Rawls, social justice entails protecting equal access to freedoms, rights, and opportunities as well as looking out for those in society who are less fortunate. Therefore, if anything supports or impedes equality of access to civil liberties, human rights, opportunities for healthy and meaningful lives, as well as whether it distributes a fair share of advantages to the least advantaged members of society, will determine whether it is just or unjust. His philosophy of social justice is based on the concept of a social contract, wherein individuals freely agree to abide by particular laws for the benefit of all, without taking into account how these laws can affect their own selfish interests.

In his critique of Rawls' proposal for state-mandated redistribution, Robert Nozick argued that it violated the fundamental principle of preserving individual liberty. He advocated for fairness in the method by which material gains and benefits are obtained. Others have made arguments that go beyond distributional concerns and emphasize the need to end entrenched injustice and dominance.

In order to make sense of social justice and the claims made based on it, the two types need to be explored.

Redistributive claims which seek fair distribution of resources and goods. The politics of redistribution focuses primarily on socio-economic injustices rooted in the economic structure of the society
Politics of recognition whose goal is to create a difference friendly world. This targets cultural injustices rooted in the social patterns of representation and communication.

When dominance and oppression are used as the foundation for defining social justice, it appears appropriate to have a larger grasp of social and power relations and to look beyond monetary factors. Social justice is founded in the fight for recognition, and its non-material components go beyond economic redistribution. Claims of recognition center on how individuals are portrayed. Both of these approaches to justice—whether redistributive or motivated by a desire for better representation—address different kinds of injustices and errors in judgment. Both of these approaches suggest different ways to address injustice; for the politics of redistribution, economic restructuring is the answer, whereas for the politics of recognition, a cultural or symbolic shift is the answer. However, rather than being seen as competitors, these approaches should be seen as complementary. So as to meet the economic, political, and cultural components of justice, social justice also includes acknowledgment and redistribution.

Rawl's definition of well-being in terms of things like income and wealth, and the fact that this neglected the plight of disabled persons or those with other specific needs, generated another viewpoint as voiced by Amartya Sen. As a result, he advocated that rather than focusing on an individual's finances, the evaluation of their life should instead be done to decide whether they are eligible for state assistance. A person's capacity is their ability to "do or be," while their capability is their ability to carry out their potential. A person's "capability set" is also the various functional configurations they are able to attain given their opportunities and resources.

Social justice and Equality

Social justice is concerned with the equity of social structures and the degree to which they can be justified, meaning that they have a distributive component. The method of redistribution and the degree to which it is thought it should be supplied rely on the individual's interpretation of what fairness is. Since a socially just distribution is primarily concerned with the availability of material resources so that a person may live a life of dignity, is able to overcome disadvantage, and flourishes, social justice thus legitimizes the principle of "redistributive equality," indicating a fair allocation of income and financial resources. This subsequently leads to equalizing programs, which aim to change distribution by offering welfare benefits.

However, there are many perspectives on what equality is, and this has effects on how social policy is examined. For instance, the terms "social equality" and "equality of status" relate to the acceptance of each person's inherent equality while criticizing social privilege and injustice. Due to the need to ensure equal access to resources without which life would be insufficient, social institutions in the shape of social policies had to be developed. However, because of the outcomes they produced, egalitarian social policies were questioned. One could argue that a social justice perspective on social issues doesn't always lead to equality.

Social policies that support equality of opportunity are given a lot of attention. This, however, avoids using redistribution to address the ongoing inequities, further departing from the social justice principles. These equal opportunity policies put a lot of emphasis on how inequities are distributed fairly. Therefore, any attempt to create inclusive and equitable possibilities or simply end discrimination would flagrantly overlook the past wrongs, which might seriously impede equal opportunities. It has been suggested that a procedure that appeared fair may really repeat disadvantage while going by the name of meritocracy. The imbalance in distribution, recognition, and representation may not be able to be addressed by such an approach to advance equal opportunities.

Linkages between Social Justice and Social Protection

More people are becoming aware of the potential of social protection to advance social justice results for many marginalized social groups. Social protection is one of the fundamental goals of social development, however social protection is still equated with safety nets for humanitarian aid, in which aid is frequently given on a discretionary rather than an entitlement basis and for a short time. People who receive help have transitioned from being beneficiaries to recipients and even claimants of such social services over time thanks to quasi-welfare programs like social pension schemes that offer regular disbursements. Although social protection has evolved over time, obtaining social justice outcomes still serves as its primary objective.

So, in order to avoid stigmatizing people, social protection needs to be provided in a sensitive manner. In order to encourage claimants to become engaged citizens rather than merely passive recipients, programs must respect their dignity. By altering the relationships that lead to the persistence of vulnerability, marginalization, and poverty, even the "transformative social protection agenda" seeks to achieve this. Therefore, it may also be claimed that social protection programs may be able to address some of the underlying reasons of poverty by connecting them to other aspects of social policy such as social justice, ending discrimination, and ending social exclusion. Others, however, contend that social justice cannot simply be attained through social protection and that it may not be politically wise to speak in terms of rights and justice because policymakers are frequently concerned about the financial and legal repercussions of having to satisfy justiciable claims.

While social protection promotes social justice, there are some theories that social transfers are actually counterproductive to social justice since they could serve to distract people from the main problems and postpone doing the essential structural change-making steps. This is true because social transfers do not alter the established economic and political power structures or the status quo. More importantly, it pays little attention to economic inequality, which contributes to poverty, vulnerability, and socioeconomic instability.

So that empowered people may make wise life decisions and develop their capacity, social protection must emphasize empowerment as both a process and an outcome in attaining social justice. The ability to exercise choice can be made easier by improving a person's access to economic, human, and social resources. Second, it's crucial to increase agency so that people can choose and pursue their own life objectives in order to highlight the importance of both individual and group decision-making. Finally, agency and resources will work together to improve capability, increasing the likelihood that they will achieve their goals.

Therefore, in order to achieve social justice, social protection programs need to go beyond a safety net approach and attempt to empower people and social groupings at three levels: the individual level, household level, and community level. Additionally, social protection can be created in a way that encourages the values of reciprocity and mutual obligation in order to bring about social cohesion. For instance, it might be claimed that social pensions reinforce older people's financial involvement in family and community affairs, contributing to the development of social capital. If the pension is shared with the larger family, it might promote communal trust and increase family reliance. Transfers like pensions, though, might occasionally even prolong marginalization. For instance, even for those who get transfers, their duties to their families can prohibit them from using it to make money or maintain their independence.

A very important thing to keep in mind is that the idea of justice may be subjective, varying from group to group and being open to change. This is true, yet different groups work toward achieving a reasonable level of relative justice. Although the "goal" is a crucial consideration, the process of seeking and working for justice is just as significant, and occasionally in this process, certain groups may be excluded. In this sense, justice may also be understood as a fairly distributed distribution of the costs and benefits of group membership; while adhering to a good procedure has value, it does not guarantee a just result. Aspects like the degree to which the service or justice is merited, its need, as well as its rights, in particular since these pertain to vulnerable groups, must be taken into account in the framework of policy analysis, especially those relating to social justice. A policy's implications for reducing disparities remain crucial and demand careful examination because equality is another essential component.

References

Jones, N., & Shahrokh, T. (2012). Social protection pathways: shaping social justice outcomes for the most marginalised now and post-2015. Background Note. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Bajpai, R. (2010). Rhetoric as argument: Social justice and affirmative action in India, 1990. Modern Asian Studies, 44(04), 675-708.
Alcock, P., May, M., & Wright, S. (Eds.). (2011). The student's companion to social policy. John Wiley & Sons.