Fairness from an Economist’s Perspective. John Rawls versus Robert Nozick

Elena M. Skarzhinskaya; Vladimir Tsurikov

doi:10.52957/2221-3260-2026-8-13-29

JEL D63 JEL H23 JEL H41

3 more Collapse

FAIRNESS FROM AN ECONOMIST’S PERSPECTIVE. JOHN RAWLS VERSUS ROBERT NOZICK Fairness from an Economist’s Perspective. John Rawls versus Robert Nozick

АА Аа

Published in Theoretical economics · Issue 8, 2026 · Pages 13–29 · Rubric: ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF THEORETICAL ECONOMY

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52957/2221-3260-2026-8-13-29

Received: 10.07.2026 Accepted: 20.08.2026 Published: 30.08.2026

Authors

Elena M. Skarzhinskaya

ORCID

Vladimir Tsurikov

ORCID

Elena M. Skarzhinskaya

Kostroma State University Russian Federation · Kostroma

ORCID

Vladimir Tsurikov

Academic degree: doctor of economic sciences

Science rang: professor

Kostroma State Agricultural Academy Russian Federation · Kostroma

ORCID

ABSTRACT

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the theories of justice by John Rawls and Robert Nozick from the perspective of economic science. The choice of these concepts is due to their fundamental differences, which allow for identifying and assessing the risks of economic consequences that may arise from the implementation of alternative principles of justice. John Rawls defines justice through the principle of equal basic rights and freedoms for all, allowing economic and/or social inequality only in cases where it benefits the least advantaged members of society. Robert Nozick, as a proponent of the minimal state, views justice as the observance of each individual’s right to self-ownership and considers any coercive redistribution of resources (including taxation) unjust, except for cases of rectifying past injustices. The analysis shows that the high level of social support envisioned by Rawls’ concept to reduce inequality may distort market incentives, create a free-rider problem, foster a tendency toward voluntary unemployment, contribute to the bureaucratization of the economy (amplifying the «leaky bucket» effect), and create conditions for institutional capture. Additionally, Rawls’ main mechanism, the «veil of ignorance», intended for fair distribution of goods, may not function as the author assumes. On the other hand, Nozick’s minimal state, due to its rejection of income redistribution, may lead to inequality traps, tendencies toward the emergence of ghettos and increased crime, as well as problems in funding public goods. Moreover, the consistent application of the rectification principle, which could result in large-scale property redistribution, may entail significant social and economic costs. Despite the conceptual value of both theories, their inherent shortcomings make them unsuitable in their pure form for practical implementation in a real economic system.

KEYWORDS

John Rawls, Robert Nozick, theory of justice, state, minimal state, veil of ignorance

Text

Text (PDF)

Read Download

1. Aristotel'. Sobranie sochineniy v 4-h tomah. Tom 4. M.: Mysl', 1983.

2. Barash R.E. Predstavleniya rossiyan o klyuchevyh sostavlyayuschih kachestva zhizni i social'noy spravedlivosti: srez obschestvennogo mneniya v 2024 g. // Vestnik Instituta sociologii. 2024. № 4. S. 82-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/vis.2024.15.4.7; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/UBPJFV

3. Berdyaev N.A. Filosofskaya istina i intelligentskaya pravda. [Elektronnyy resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Filosofskaya istina i intelligentskaya pravda (Berdyaev) (data obrascheniya: 2.04.2026).

4. B'yukenen Dzh. Sochineniya. Per. s angl. Seriya: «Nobelevskie laureaty po ekonomike». T.1. / Fond ekonomicheskoy iniciativy; Gl.red.kol.: Nureev R.M. i dr./ M.: «Taurus Al'fa», 1997. 560 s.

5. Voronina N.S. Social'naya spravedlivost' v ocenkah rossiyskoy molodezhi (na osnove dannyh RLMS za 2019 g.) // Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennost'. 2022. № 2. S. 95-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869049922020071; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/EVXLVA

6. Gobbs T. Izbrannye proizvedeniya v 2 t. T. 2. M.: Mysl', 1964. 748 s.

7. Kant I. Metafizika nravov. Soch. v 6 t. T. 4, chast' 2. M.: Mysl', 1965. S. 107-438. [Elektronnyy resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000502/index.shtml (data obrascheniya: 2.04.2026).

8. Lokk Dzh. Ob istinnom proishozhdenii, oblasti deystviya i celi grazhdanskogo pravleniya. Sochineniya v 3 t. T. 3. M.: Mysl', 1988. S. 137-405.

9. Mareeva S.V. Social'no-ekonomicheskie neravenstva v zhizni rossiyan: osobennosti vospriyatiya i dinamika // Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Sociologiya. 2025. № 2. S. 344-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2025-25-2-344-362; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/AIWOMB

10. Mastikova N.S. Vospriyatie social'noy spravedlivosti rossiyanami na osnove dannyh evropeyskogo issledovaniya // Nauchnyy rezul'tat: Sociologiya i upravlenie. 2019. № 1. S. 39-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18413/2408-9338-2019-5-1-0-4; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/WBQMRG

11. Morozov K.E. Bazovyy dohod kak instrument rektifikacii // Filosofiya i obschestvo. 2025. № 3. S. 118-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30884/jfio/2025.03.08; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/PBDYEF

12. Morozov K.E. Podderzhival li Robert Nozik prinuditel'noe nalogooblozhenie // Filosofiya i obschestvo. 2023. № 2 (107). S. 78-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30884/jfio/2023.02.06; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/TSYXZD

13. Menk'yu N.G. Principy Ekonomiks. SPb.: Piter, 2012. 672 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QVDMXJ

14. Niskanen U.A. Avtokraticheskaya, demokraticheskaya i optimal'naya formy pravleniya. Fiskal'nye resheniya i ekonomicheskie rezul'taty. Izdatel'stvo Instituta Gaydara, 2013. 176 s.

15. Nozik R. Anarhiya, gosudarstvo i utopiya / Per. s angl. B. Pinskera. M.: IRISEN, 2008. 424 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QQLXIP

16. Pecherskaya N.V. Metamorfozy spravedlivosti: istoriko-etimologicheskiy analiz ponyatiya spravedlivosti v russkoy kul'ture. [Elektronnyy resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_5078464_32259347.pdf (data obrascheniya: 2.04.2026).

17. Piketti T. Kapital i ideologiya: global'nyy vzglyad na rezhimy neravenstva // Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2021. № 8. S. 140-153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250015273-3; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ZLECGH

18. Rolz Dzh. Teoriya spravedlivosti. M.: Izd-vo LKI, 2010. 536 s EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QOLBEN

19. Samuel'son P.A., Nordhaus V.D. Ekonomika. Moskva: Vil'yams, 2017. 1358 s.

20. Sen A. Ideya spravedlivosti. M.: Izd-vo Instituta Gaydara, 2016. 520 s.

21. Solov'eva V.V. K voprosu o teorii spravedlivosti Dzhona Rolza // Aktual'nye problemy gosudarstva i prava. 2022. T. 6. № 2. S. 167-177.

22. Skarzhinskaya E.M., Curikov V.I. Model' kollektivnyh deystviy. Chast' 1: ravnovesie, spravedlivost', effektivnost' // Ekonomika i matematicheskie metody. 2017. № 2. S. 118-133. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YRRPER

23. Stiglic Dzh. Yu. Ekonomika gosudarstvennogo sektora. M.: Izd vo MGU: INFRA-M, 1997. 720 s.

24. Sendel M. Spravedlivost'. Kak postupat' pravil'no? Moskva: Mann, Ivanov i Ferber, 2013. 352 s.

25. Tallok G. Poteri blagosostoyaniya ot tarifov, monopoliy i vorovstva // Vehi ekonomicheskoy mysli / Pod red. A.P. Zaostrovceva. SPb.: Ekonomicheskaya shkola, 2004. S. 435-448. [Elektronnyy resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa https://www.seinst.ru/files/vehi_4_015_tullock_welfare-costs.pdf (data obrascheniya: 2.04.2026).

26. Akerlof George A. The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism // Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1970. Vol. 84. No. 3. P. 488-500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431

27. Harsanyi J. C. Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls’s Theory // The American Political Science Review. 1975. Vol. 89. No. 2. P. 594-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1959090

28. Okun Arthur M. Equality and Efficiency, the Big Tradeoff. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1975. 124 p.

29. Roemer J.E., Trannoy A. Equality of Opportunity: Theory and Measurement // Journal of Economic Literature. 2016. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 1288-1332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20151206

30. Stigler G.J. The Theory of Economic Regulation // Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science. 1971. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 3-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3003160

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

PDF JATS XML

Executive editor

Maksim Markin

markinmi@ystu.ru

Chief Editor

Valery Gordeev

vagordeev@rambler.ru

Deputy Editor-in-Chief

Marina Mayorova

mayorovama@ystu.ru

Deputy editor-in-chief

Galina Rodina

galinarodina@mail.ru

128

downloads

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Creative Commons

GOST

Skarzhinskaya E., Tsurikov V. I. Fairness from an Economist’s Perspective. John Rawls versus Robert Nozick // Theoretical economics. 2026. no. 8. pp. 13-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52957/2221-3260-2026-8-13-29. (Date of access 21.10.2026).

MLA

Elena M. Skarzhinskaya, Tsurikov V. I.. "Fairness from an Economist’s Perspective. John Rawls versus Robert Nozick." Theoretical economics.8 (2026): 13-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52957/2221-3260-2026-8-13-29.

APA

Skarzhinskaya E., Tsurikov V. I. (2026). Fairness from an Economist’s Perspective. John Rawls versus Robert Nozick. Theoretical economics(8), 13-29. https://doi.org/10.52957/2221-3260-2026-8-13-29

Chicago

Elena M. Skarzhinskaya, Tsurikov V. I.. "Fairness from an Economist’s Perspective. John Rawls versus Robert Nozick." Theoretical economics, no. 8 (2026): 13-29. https://doi.org/10.52957/2221-3260-2026-8-13-29.

WIKI

{{cite journal | author = Skarzhinskaya E., Tsurikov V. I. | title = Fairness from an Economist’s Perspective. John Rawls versus Robert Nozick | journal = Theoretical economics | year = 2026 | issue = 8 | pages = 13-29 | doi = 10.52957/2221-3260-2026-8-13-29 }}

Copy

Export: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RusMARC

FAIRNESS FROM AN ECONOMIST’S PERSPECTIVE. JOHN RAWLS VERSUS ROBERT NOZICK Fairness from an Economist’s Perspective. John Rawls versus Robert Nozick

Confirmation