Trading off competing allocation principles

In this book the tenability of prominent but conflicting allocation principles is evaluated with the help of questionnaire studies. Particularly the acceptance of a compromise solution is investigated which demands maximising total welfare subject to a certain floor level of individual welfare of all people. An interdisciplinary approach is followed to motivate each survey. With the help of graphical presentations consequences of different principles are visualised. Trade-offs between competing notions are found to be much more likely than possibly expected. Heterogeneity of justice attitudes can be witnessed in all studies. However, the principles of responsibility and needs seem to be of greater importance. Additionally, the gender of a respondent is found to have a major impact.