Risk Allocation And Institutional Justice

It’s indisputable that political science has put its sight into the distribution of wealth before, and c oncerned a little about the risk allocation. While the inequality of the risk distribution has become a ra lly point of various risk social contradictions, we have to put the relevant propositional exploration on the agenda.Fromthe perspective of risk perception and action, the injustice of risk allocation embodies in ris k carriers’ disorders of risk cognition and action ability. As an initiative person in the risk domains, the risk carrier who holds the rational relationship between risk cognition and action, grasps the risk and puts it into action accurately in an " ideal state". This is mainly reflected in which the level of risk is fr om low to high order in accordance with risk cognition and action. However, there are always various reasons make their risk capacity "disorders", while the disorder of risk capacity will trigger off them b e inaccurate in risk judgment and action, taking too much risk accordingly. For the research of the cau se of risk carriers’ risk ability, we can proceed from many aspects. If we start from the institutional perspective view, the risk carriers’ disorder which leads to the ris k allocation injustice is mainly caused by the injustice of the risk distribution system, while the injusti ce of risk system is caused because of the asymmetric existence of its connotative risk power. Due to t he risk class’s polarization phenomenon, the rational risk carriers are always split into powerful group and vulnerable group of two opposite classes. Risk power can be divided into three parts:the wealth ri sk power, intellectual risk power and mandatory risk power according to standard of how much risky power each class masters. Risk-strong group are those people who occupy a larger portion of the three types of risk power. By seizing upon this comparative advantage to master the powerful capability of risk manufacturing and allocation, they fabricate risk and pass it on the vulnerable group.Nonetheless, the risk vulnerable group are not completely power destitute. When pass a great dea1of low level risk on the vulnerable group, the risk powerful group left the high level risk to themselv es. What’s more, the more low-level risk they transfer to the vulnerable group, the stronger intensity of high-level risk they will bear. That’s the reason why the risk shifting behavior will not bring them ulti mate safety. That is to say, the unjust risk allocation system will not bring security to any sides. For th is reason, the adjustment and improvement of these unjust systems is imperative.The direction of system adjustment is to realize the system logic’s "tendentious logic" to "transpo sition logic" transition, which is to ensure while the distribution system is suitable for different groups and the system effect has consistency. It reflects the symmetrical distribution of the risk power for va rious risk distribution subjects. Of course, it’s necessary to have a special note that the symmetrical dis tribution of this risk power has two situations. One is "to have" symmetry, that is risk power mastered by each side is parity; nobody is much more or much less than anyone else. The symmetric pattern of the risk power can guarantee distributive justice of risk power, while it may lead to the emergence of overall insecurity of the risk allocation results. That appears to be in total with life and death, and eve ntually perish together situation. This is not the best situation we aspire to. Another is "no" symmetric al, that is minimize everyone’s risk power, thus to bear zero risk equally. Such a realm is the real drea m of an ideal vision.