Equity and Social Justice

The definition of social justice and equity presents several challenges. Stone affirms that analyzing equity through a distribution perspective -- requiring the analysis of how goods, services, wealth, income, health, illness, opportunity, and disadvantage are distributed within a society -- contributes to social justice. The complexity of this analytical definition is based on: defining who is entitled to equal treatment; acknowledging that internal divisions lead a differential rewarding system; establishing a distribution system based on collectiveness to countermeasure individual and rank-based distribution; redefining boundaries across categories and time; and redefining the values of what has been distributed by means of customized procedures. Considering these challenges in policy-making processes helps society mitigate inequity and achieve social justice.

Stones also introduces the readers to the difficulties of defining both justice and injustice in the context of postmodern cities. Stone highlights that the definition of justice and injustice according to social conservative and liberal perspectives are many times intertwined; however, it is possible to distinguish these definitions and group the main characteristics of each ideology. Stone cities Nozick to show that conservatives believe that distribution has to be voluntary and fair and that identifying independent standards is not an impartial task. Nozick explains injustice through a historical perspective of unequal distribution systems. Arguing against and complementing Nozick’s viewpoints, Stone highlights Rawls’s positions on fair distribution. Rawls’s liberals assume that distribution leads to justice by focusing on the process deriving from institutional regulations and social contracts serving to equalize inequality. Rawls also highlights that defining recipient characteristics – like education and gender – are important indicators for policy-makers while addressing social injustice.

The followers of Nozick’s and Rawls’s ideas also debate over other issues. Nozick’s social conservatives defend limiting behavior, restricting institutional intervention, property as a result of individual effort, and motivation deriving from deprivation. Rawls’s liberal ideas, however, argue that direct distribution corrects what is incorrect, that taxes not necessarily constrain freedom, that property is a result of collective efforts, and that motivation comes from an internal drive to work.

Conservative and liberal oriented rationales are both important for social justice. As Stone highlights, it is important to have “the notion of fairness not only at the end results but also of a fair process by which the results occurred. We accept unfair results as long as processes are fair.” Harvey provides a planning perspective for Stone’s statement. Just cities are built when they provide “the right to change ourselves by changing the city through collective power.” However, the paradox that planners face is that by allocating resources somewhere they end up harming other groups’ interests. Harvey agrees that the complexity of this economic event derives from a capitalist engine interested in the reinvestment of surpluses. Harvey also admits that this economic phenomenon is important in the process of accelerating growth and tackling inequity. An example of this paradox is the US in the 1990s. The US government used the housing sector to stimulate the local economy by facilitating private funding for householders. However, the same market that worked towards equity also created the conditions for an increasing social injustice in a recent economic crisis. In this context of increased privatization of public control, Harvey suggests that citizens should enjoy a more democratic control over production and utilization of surpluses.

Building a just city requires three conditions. According to Fainstein, planners help reduce social injustice by considering the following categories: environmental impact, access to public space, and public space usage. Planners should be aware of power relations and social structures while addressing equity issues. Another question that planners must ask themselves is how much social conflict is acceptable to achieve social justice. For instance, how much taxes are the better-off willing to contribute to cash transfer programs. Planners also have to acknowledge that building highly-built environment not always benefit the rich and the poor alike. Resource allocation and amenities must benefit both groups at the same degree. Another hard task for planners is to identify who is charge of analyzing output benefits in each social group and consider alternatives that benefit the less political and financial social group. Finally, planners should create just cities by building urban spaces that embrace tolerance and difference, where exists a widely distribution of ownership of productive assets, and convince the advantages that the disadvantages are not “others” but part of a collective group sharing services, goods, and social rationales.

Fanstein, S. "Planning and the just city". Columbia, 2006
Stone, D. "Policy Paradox". Glenview, 1988
Harvey, D. "The right to the city". International Journal of Urban and regional Research, 2003