Begreppet social rättvisa är omstritt – dels hur det ska förstås, dels vilken vikt man ska lägga vid det. Hayek är känd för att anse begreppet meningslöst och, i försök till tillämpning, farligt i en marknadsekonomi – han valde t.ex. The Mirage of Social Justice som underrubrik till andra delen av sin trilogi Law, Legislation and Liberty. Bl.a. skriver han:

The commitment to “social justice” has, in fact, become the chief outlet for moral emotion, the distinguishing attribute of the good man, and the recognized sign of the possession of a moral conscience. … But the near-universal acceptance of a belief does not prove that it is valid or even meaningful any more than the general belief in witches or ghosts proved the validity of those concepts. What we have to deal with in the case of “social justice” is simply a quasi-religious superstition of the kind which we should respectfully leave in peace so long as it merely makes those happy who hold it, but which we must fight when it becomes the pretext of coercing other men. And the prevailing belief in “social justice” is at its present probably the gravest threat to most other values of a free civilization.

Ord och inga visor. Men de flesta i vår politiska diskurs verkar icke desto mindre anse begreppet användbart och dessutom tilltalande.

Om man nu gör det är det intressant att försöka utröna vad som påverkar graden av social rättvisa. I studien ”Globalization and Social Justice in OECD Countries” undersöks hur globaliseringen är relaterad till social rättvisa inom OECD. Som mått på social rättvisa används ett index som Bertelsmann Stiftung har tagit fram och som består av dessa delar:

The social justice indicator is based on five sub-indicators: poverty prevention, equitable access to education, labor market inclusiveness, social cohesion and equality, and intergenerational justice.

När forskarna relaterar detta mått till globalisering finner de följande:

The results show that countries that experienced rapid globalization enjoy social justice. The results are important because advocates of the dark side of globalization propagate the view that globalization reduces social justice. It is conceivable that globalization enhances social justice because voters demand more active governments when globalization is proceeding rapidly. The relationship between globalization and social justice is pronounced for poverty prevention, social cohesion and equality, and intergenerational justice, and thus supports the compensation hypothesis. Globalization, however, was not associated with the indicators on equitable access to education and labor market inclusiveness. These findings are plausible because the equitable access to education indicator is based on future-oriented measures and election-motivated governments are more concerned about the present than the future. Governments also do not directly influence market outcomes on which the labor market inclusiveness indicator is based.

Dessa regressionsbaserade resultat är i linje med dessa enkla plottar:

Det verkar alltså som om globalisering är positivt relaterad till tre av de fem delarna av indexet och inte alls till två av dem; men i inget fall kan en negativ relation identifieras. Ett resultat som kan jämföras med andra studier som har undersökt sambandet mellan globalisering och fattigdom, barns hälsa, tolerans, livslängd och inkomstjämlikhet.