Search results

« La première règle de la politique ? C'est d'être juste. La seconde ? C'est d'être juste. Et la troisième ? C'est encore d'être juste. » Voilà ce qu'écrivait le Marquis de Condorcet en 1777. Mais qu'est-ce qu'une politique juste, une société juste ? Qu'est-ce que la justice sociale ? Ces questions habitent la philosophie politique depuis des siècles. Le terme « justice » recouvre, dans le monde occidental au moins, deux concepts liés mais néanmoins très différents que sont la justice légale, d'une part, et la justice sociale, d'autre part. Le premier désigne une institution concrète – le pouvoir judiciaire – et des normes positives. Le second renvoie à un idéal normatif pour la société (nationale ou internationale). C'est à ce second sens du terme « justice » que s'intéresse cet article, à cette idée de justice qui réside au cœur de nombreuses luttes sociales et débats démocratiques. Tantôt invoquée pour lutter contre les discriminations, tantôt pour condamner les inégalités, tantôt pour s'opposer à des taux d'imposition jugés confiscatoires, la notion de justice (ou d'équité) est à la fois incontournable et susceptible des interprétations les plus diverses. Cet article propose un parcours entre différentes grandes familles de théories de la justice (libertarisme, marxisme, utilitarisme, égalitarisme, suffisantisme, féminisme, communautarisme) et aborde quelques-unes des principales questions qui ont animé les débats récents sur le sujet, comme la tension entre reconnaissance et redistribution, la nature des principes de justice, ou encore l'articulation entre justice sociale et éthique personnelle.

« La première règle de la politique ? C'est d'être juste. La seconde ? C'est d'être juste. Et la troisième ? C'est encore d'être juste. » Voilà ce qu'écrivait le Marquis de Condorcet en 1777. Mais qu'est-ce qu'une politique juste, une société juste ? Qu'est-ce que la justice sociale ? Ces questions habitent la philosophie politique depuis des siècles. Le terme « justice » recouvre, dans le monde occidental au moins, deux concepts liés mais néanmoins très différents que sont la justice légale, d'une part, et la justice sociale, d'autre part. Le premier désigne une institution concrète – le pouvoir judiciaire – et des normes positives. Le second renvoie à un idéal normatif pour la société (nationale ou internationale). C'est à ce second sens du terme « justice » que s'intéresse cet article, à cette idée de justice qui réside au cœur de nombreuses luttes sociales et débats démocratiques. Tantôt invoquée pour lutter contre les discriminations, tantôt pour condamner les inégalités, tantôt pour s'opposer à des taux d'imposition jugés confiscatoires, la notion de justice (ou d'équité) est à la fois incontournable et susceptible des interprétations les plus diverses. Cet article propose un parcours entre différentes grandes familles de théories de la justice (libertarisme, marxisme, utilitarisme, égalitarisme, suffisantisme, féminisme, communautarisme) et aborde quelques-unes des principales questions qui ont animé les débats récents sur le sujet, comme la tension entre reconnaissance et redistribution, la nature des principes de justice, ou encore l'articulation entre justice sociale et éthique personnelle.

This book explores the problematic relationship between education, social justice and the State, against the background of comparative education research. The book critiques the status quo of stratified school systems, and the unequal distribution of cultural capital and value added schooling. The authors address one of today's most pressing questions: Are social, economic and cultural divisions between the nations, between school sectors, between schools and between students growing or declining?

Trust in Lithuanian police, courts and prosecutors oqce has reached the record values in 2015. Trust and conCdence in these institutions is growing, though it is diqcult to identify what exactly is stimulating that growth. Public relations or media in_uence, or good organization of the institutional work as well as other reason can be an explanation for the better public attitudes. Answers to the question "Do you trust the police, courts, prosecutors oqce?" do not explain what was done properly when trust values raise, and what problematic areas of institution work need attention when evaluations are getting worse. `ere is a signiCcant doubt expressed in academic literature if this and only indicator, so oƒen used for the evaluation of institution work, adequately describes how good or eQectively prosecutors oqce works, police safeguards public security, and courts ensure protection of citizen rights, defence of interests and other demands of democratic society. `e article analyses trust and conCdence in institutions of criminal justice system in Lithuania. Analysis uses ideas and data of two international research projects - EURO-JUSTIS and FIDUCIA. We examine trust and conCdence as complex phenomenon, which include several important aspects: 1) eQectiveness of criminal justice institutions; 2) distributive justice; 3) procedural justice; 4) shared perceptions of right and wrong and shared moral values with institutions; 5) legitimacy of institutions; 6) co-operation between society and criminal justice institutions. Evaluation of the survey data shows that diQerent elements of this phenomenon obtain diQerent ratings, and diQer from the evaluation of trust and conCdence in the broad sense. Understanding of these diQerences gives us a possibility to assess and improve work of criminal justice institutions more purposefully

Trust in Lithuanian police, courts and prosecutors oqce has reached the record values in 2015. Trust and conCdence in these institutions is growing, though it is diqcult to identify what exactly is stimulating that growth. Public relations or media in_uence, or good organization of the institutional work as well as other reason can be an explanation for the better public attitudes. Answers to the question "Do you trust the police, courts, prosecutors oqce?" do not explain what was done properly when trust values raise, and what problematic areas of institution work need attention when evaluations are getting worse. `ere is a signiCcant doubt expressed in academic literature if this and only indicator, so oƒen used for the evaluation of institution work, adequately describes how good or eQectively prosecutors oqce works, police safeguards public security, and courts ensure protection of citizen rights, defence of interests and other demands of democratic society. `e article analyses trust and conCdence in institutions of criminal justice system in Lithuania. Analysis uses ideas and data of two international research projects - EURO-JUSTIS and FIDUCIA. We examine trust and conCdence as complex phenomenon, which include several important aspects: 1) eQectiveness of criminal justice institutions; 2) distributive justice; 3) procedural justice; 4) shared perceptions of right and wrong and shared moral values with institutions; 5) legitimacy of institutions; 6) co-operation between society and criminal justice institutions. Evaluation of the survey data shows that diQerent elements of this phenomenon obtain diQerent ratings, and diQer from the evaluation of trust and conCdence in the broad sense. Understanding of these diQerences gives us a possibility to assess and improve work of criminal justice institutions more purposefully

In this article, we put forward two arguments for greater attention from central banks to the distributional implications of monetary policies. Using the dual effect doctrine, we show that central bankers are responsible for the distributional effects of their unconventional monetary policies. Moreover, given that the traditional leverage of taxation is facing serious difficulties today, central bank support could be decisive in reducing economic inequalities. We then assess the theoretical and empirical arguments raised by central bankers against this proposal. We conclude that these objections do not undermine the attractiveness of central banks' responsibility for distribution. ; Dans cet article, nous présentons deux arguments en faveur d'une attention accrue des banques centrales à l'égard des implications distributives des politiques monétaires. En mobilisant la doctrine du double effet, nous montrons que la responsabilité des banquiers centraux quant aux effets distributifs de leurs politiques monétaires non conventionnelles est engagée. De plus, étant donné que le levier traditionnel de la fiscalité fait face à de sérieuses difficultés aujourd'hui, l'appui des banques centrales pourrait être décisif pour la réduction des inégalités économiques. Nous évaluons ensuite les arguments théoriques et empiriques soulevés par les banquiers centraux contre cette proposition. Nous concluons que ces objections ne minent pas l'attrait d'une responsabilité des banques centrales en matière de distribution.

The reference to pain, lack of counterpart to social aid and abuse of solidarity systems is repeated in the political, economic and social discourse of recent decades. We will draw on the 4th edition of the European Social Survey (2008) and the Perception des Inegalities et sentiments de justice (2010-2011) to highlight the role of the reference to abuse of social assistance in the individual representations of social justice and the concepts of social cohesion in France. We will show that the understanding of these deviating and stigmatised behaviours as such plays a central role in the individual importance attributed to the structures of the social state and is a constituent part of contemporary conceptions of social justice, within the national framework. I would point out how often they are based on moral reasons or beliefs of principle rather than on economic arguments. ; La référence à la paresse, à l'absence de contrepartie aux aides sociales et aux abus à l'égard des systèmes de solidarité sont récurrentes dans les discours politiques, économiques et sociaux des dernières décennies. Nous nous appuierons sur l'European Social Survey 4ème édition (2008) et l'enquête Perception des Inégalités et sentiments de justice (2010-2011) pour mettre en évidence le rôle de la référence aux abus à l'aide sociale, dans les représentations individuelles de la justice sociale et les conceptions de la cohésion sociale en France. Nous montrerons que l'appréhension de ces comportements déviants et stigmatisés comme tels joue un rôle central dans l'importance individuellement conférée aux structures de l'État social et s'avère constitutive des conceptions contemporaines de la justice sociale, dans le cadre national. Nous soulignerons combien celles-ci sont en effet le plus souvent fondées sur des raisons morales ou des convictions de principe plutôt que sur des arguments économiques.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

The perception of criminal justice in society is a controversial social problem. Traditionally, criminal justice issues have ban treated as a matter of professional interest for criminologists, criminal justice experts and other profesionals from related fields. But is expert knowledge the only valid kind when it comes to criminal justice topics? This question, though rhetorical, is aimed at stimulating discussian about the co-existence of different types of social knowledge on criminal justice, and their impact on various discourses concerning crime and punishment in society. In this article a group of researchers from Vilnim University makes use of phenomenological methods to analyse three different types of discourse on criminal justice: professional, political and public. The professional discourse of criminal justice is scrutinised from tbe perspective of penal law, the political discourse from the point of view of macroeconomics, while the public discourse is analysed using ideas drawn from psychology and media studies. The analysis of these discourses seeks to examine the social construction of criminal justice, and the particularities of its reception among professionals, politicians and a wider public.

n° spécial "Transport et mobilité" http://www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_REVUE=RPVE&ID_NUMPUBLIE=RPVE_434&ID_ARTICLE=RPVE_434_0123 ; International audience ; The current context of increasing social and spatial disparities raises the issue of universal accessibility to the city and its services, in particular for low incomes persons. The issue of inequality with regard to travel, which we have considered first of all at an aggregate level using the usual travel indicators (number of trips, distance covered, travel time budget), essentially comes down to inequality in access to the car. An analysis of recent changes in urban public transport pricing policy and a survey conducted within welfare and social integration agencies in the conurbations of Lyon, Nancy and Nantes have been used to obtain a more accurate qualitative and quantitative picture of transport difficulties. ; Les évolutions actuelles montrent que le processus de métropolisation à l'œuvre est caractérisé par un triple phénomène de concentration, d'étalement urbain et de ségrégation spatiale intra-urbaine. Celui-ci se traduit notamment par une polarisation et une spécification des territoires. Les distances de migrations alternantes augmentent sans cesse pour ceux qui ont accès au travail. Dans ce contexte, le questionnement sur les liens entre déplacements et inégalités est primordial. Il peut être abordé de deux manières. La première vise à identifier s'il existe des inégalités de revenu ou de situation sociale en matière de déplacements et si oui lesquelles. La seconde vise à déterminer si la politique des transports, dans toutes ses dimensions, est à même, si ce n'est de réduire les inégalités sociales, tout au moins de contribuer à une « meilleure justice sociale ». Qui est exclu de la mobilité serait exclu de fait de la citoyenneté. Ce dernier point nous conduit ainsi à aborder plus spécifiquement la question des déplacements des plus défavorisés.