{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014903129657228018, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.068421052631579, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessing the Capacity of Pension Institutions to Promote Distributive Justice: A "Liberal" Conceptual Framework

Much of the literature regarding distributive justice and pensions has focussed disproportionately on the material preconditions for social solidarity, particularly statutory measures that would narrow the scope of differentials in the distribution of income and wealth. While we are sympathetic towards this emphasis, we contend that justice is comprised of a range of distinctive normative principles. Drawing upon an appraisal of the principal arguments of two highly influential public philosophies, this article develops a "liberal" conceptual framework which specifies the normative foundations of appropriate pension scheme design. The core principles of justice are need, which legitimates the social minimum that is necessary to sustain an adequate standard of living for the least advantaged; desert, which provides a justification for allocating income in accordance with differentials in work participation prior to retirement; and equality, which provides a normative rationale for universal citizenship entitlements. Their corresponding programme design features may be used to assess, empirically, the degree to which the design of pension institutions is consistent with the requirements of distributive justice.