Private law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracy
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2019.39627 http://hdl.handle.net/1843/37433 |
Resumo: | The article discusses an argument against the use of private law for distributive purposes, Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell’s double distortion argument (Kaplow and Shavell, 1994). It is sought to ascertain whether one of the theses on which this argument rests, the thesis of equivalence, can be confirmed in the light of John Rawls’s theory of justice. According to the thesis of equivalence, an arrangement constituted by a private law sensitive to distributive justice can be replaced, without loss to justice, by an arrangement containing an efficient private law and measures of taxation and transfer of income to achieve distributive objectives. The paper tests this thesis against two interpretations of the difference, emphasized by Rawls in late writings, between two types of institutional regime, property-owning democracy and welfare state capitalism. The idea is to verify whether an efficient private law (accompanied by taxation and transfer measures) is compatible with property-owning democracy. It is argued that Rawls’s ideas about this type of regime refute the thesis of equivalence, with varying implications depending on how the difference between property-owning democracy and welfare state capitalism is understood. |
id |
UFMG_c5d8e71f09ea88935f9809d5f527496a |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/37433 |
network_acronym_str |
UFMG |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
2021-08-12T13:47:39Z2021-08-12T13:47:39Z2019123234252https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2019.396271516-0351http://hdl.handle.net/1843/37433The article discusses an argument against the use of private law for distributive purposes, Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell’s double distortion argument (Kaplow and Shavell, 1994). It is sought to ascertain whether one of the theses on which this argument rests, the thesis of equivalence, can be confirmed in the light of John Rawls’s theory of justice. According to the thesis of equivalence, an arrangement constituted by a private law sensitive to distributive justice can be replaced, without loss to justice, by an arrangement containing an efficient private law and measures of taxation and transfer of income to achieve distributive objectives. The paper tests this thesis against two interpretations of the difference, emphasized by Rawls in late writings, between two types of institutional regime, property-owning democracy and welfare state capitalism. The idea is to verify whether an efficient private law (accompanied by taxation and transfer measures) is compatible with property-owning democracy. It is argued that Rawls’s ideas about this type of regime refute the thesis of equivalence, with varying implications depending on how the difference between property-owning democracy and welfare state capitalism is understood.O artigo discute um argumento contra o uso do direito privado para fins distributivos, o argumento da dupla distorção de Louis Kaplow e Steven Shavell (Kaplow e Shavell, 1994). Procura-se verificar se uma das teses em que este argumento se baseia, a tese da equivalência, pode ser confirmada à luz da teoria da justiça de John Rawls. Segundo a tese da equivalência, um arranjo constituído por um direito privado sensível à justiça distributiva pode ser substituído, sem prejuízo da justiça, por um arranjo que contenha um direito privado eficiente e medidas de tributação e transferência de rendimentos para a consecução de objetivos distributivos. O artigo testa esta tese contra duas interpretações da diferença, enfatizada por Rawls em seus últimos escritos, entre dois tipos de regime institucional, a democracia da propriedade e o capitalismo do estado de bem-estar. A ideia é verificar se um direito privado eficiente (acompanhado de tributação e medidas de transferência) é compatível com a democracia da propriedade. Argumenta-se que as ideias de Rawls sobre este tipo de regime refutam a tese da equivalência, com implicações variáveis, dependendo de como a diferença entre a democracia de propriedade e o capitalismo do estado de bem-estar é entendida.engUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisUFMGBrasilDIR - DEPARTAMENTO DE DIREITO E PROCESSO CIVIL E COMERCIALRevista Quaestio IurisDireito privadoJustiça distributivaRawls, JohnPrivate lawDistributive justiceDouble distortion argumentRawlsProperty-owning democracyPrivate law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracyDireito privado, argumento de dupla distorção e democracia de propriedadeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/quaestioiuris/article/view/39627Leandro Martins Zanitelliapplication/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMGinstname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)instacron:UFMGLICENSELicense.txtLicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-82042https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/37433/1/License.txtfa505098d172de0bc8864fc1287ffe22MD51ORIGINALPrivate Law, Double Distortion Argument, and Property-Owning Democracy.pdfPrivate Law, Double Distortion Argument, and Property-Owning Democracy.pdfapplication/pdf611493https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/37433/2/Private%20Law%2c%20Double%20Distortion%20Argument%2c%20and%20Property-Owning%20Democracy.pdfa9eebb74bb75e6ea3d7480d20fc01ae6MD521843/374332021-08-12 10:47:40.027oai:repositorio.ufmg.br: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Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://repositorio.ufmg.br/oaiopendoar:2021-08-12T13:47:40Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)false |
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Private law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracy |
dc.title.alternative.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Direito privado, argumento de dupla distorção e democracia de propriedade |
title |
Private law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracy |
spellingShingle |
Private law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracy Leandro Martins Zanitelli Private law Distributive justice Double distortion argument Rawls Property-owning democracy Direito privado Justiça distributiva Rawls, John |
title_short |
Private law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracy |
title_full |
Private law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracy |
title_fullStr |
Private law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracy |
title_full_unstemmed |
Private law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracy |
title_sort |
Private law, double distortion argument, and property-owning democracy |
author |
Leandro Martins Zanitelli |
author_facet |
Leandro Martins Zanitelli |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Leandro Martins Zanitelli |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Private law Distributive justice Double distortion argument Rawls Property-owning democracy |
topic |
Private law Distributive justice Double distortion argument Rawls Property-owning democracy Direito privado Justiça distributiva Rawls, John |
dc.subject.other.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Direito privado Justiça distributiva Rawls, John |
description |
The article discusses an argument against the use of private law for distributive purposes, Louis Kaplow and Steven Shavell’s double distortion argument (Kaplow and Shavell, 1994). It is sought to ascertain whether one of the theses on which this argument rests, the thesis of equivalence, can be confirmed in the light of John Rawls’s theory of justice. According to the thesis of equivalence, an arrangement constituted by a private law sensitive to distributive justice can be replaced, without loss to justice, by an arrangement containing an efficient private law and measures of taxation and transfer of income to achieve distributive objectives. The paper tests this thesis against two interpretations of the difference, emphasized by Rawls in late writings, between two types of institutional regime, property-owning democracy and welfare state capitalism. The idea is to verify whether an efficient private law (accompanied by taxation and transfer measures) is compatible with property-owning democracy. It is argued that Rawls’s ideas about this type of regime refute the thesis of equivalence, with varying implications depending on how the difference between property-owning democracy and welfare state capitalism is understood. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2019 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2021-08-12T13:47:39Z |
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv |
2021-08-12T13:47:39Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/1843/37433 |
dc.identifier.doi.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2019.39627 |
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
1516-0351 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2019.39627 http://hdl.handle.net/1843/37433 |
identifier_str_mv |
1516-0351 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Revista Quaestio Iuris |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais |
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv |
UFMG |
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv |
Brasil |
dc.publisher.department.fl_str_mv |
DIR - DEPARTAMENTO DE DIREITO E PROCESSO CIVIL E COMERCIAL |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMG instname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) instacron:UFMG |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
instacron_str |
UFMG |
institution |
UFMG |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/37433/1/License.txt https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/37433/2/Private%20Law%2c%20Double%20Distortion%20Argument%2c%20and%20Property-Owning%20Democracy.pdf |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
fa505098d172de0bc8864fc1287ffe22 a9eebb74bb75e6ea3d7480d20fc01ae6 |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1803589342394843136 |