Luis Patricio

In the Handbook on Global Social Justice, Phil Parvin (2018) argues that (emphasis mine):

A normative theory of social justice, which can stipulate the fundamental principles on which our societies should be built, and which can identify what is at stake in our discussions about policy and political life, is as central and as crucial now as it has ever been. For we live in an age in which questions of social justice loom large on the world stage and, hence, in which normative theorising about what kind of world we should live in, and what responsibilities the state has or does not have with regard to its own people and people in other parts of the world, is a crucial and central human activity.

Transport Justice as a field has been around for a few decades. In more recent years it has received increased attention (Pereira et al., 2017). To demonstrate its growth, we can point to a few recent examples such as the special issue of a scientific journal (Emerging perspectives on transportation justice) and a National Coalition in Canada to understand, develop tools and implement solutions to address the problem (Mobilizing Justice).

To fully understand what Transport Justice means, we need to look at some of its roots, including bodies of work that delve deep into contemporary social justice theories.

Theoretical Foundations of Transport Justice

Transport Justice draws from several justice scholars and theories including Amartya Sen, Ronald Dworkin, John Rawls and Michael Walzer. We will take a look in two of the theories that have significantly shaped Transport Justice:

• John Rawls’ Theory of Justice
• Michael Walzer’s Spheres of Justice

Rawls’ Theory of Justice

John Rawls is an American considered one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century. In his theory known as “Justice as Fairness”, we start with a thought experiment, assuming an original position. Its most significant feature is the Veil of Ignorance where we would collectively make decisions about distribution of resources without knowing where we would be positioned in this hypothetical equitable society. This would create a situation that each person wants only what free and equal citizens want because it would prevent three things from happening:

• Choices based on race, class, age, religion or any other aspect; since they are unknown under the veil.
• Decision based on self-interest ; since we don’t know if we would benefit from specific choices or not.
• Power imbalance of individuals that could threaten others or allocate more resources to defend a decision; since we don’t know how much we own or how much power we have.

Many of Rawls ideas and theories evolved over time, responding to critics who identified pitfalls and limitations. The first edition of his book was published in 1971. The last revised edition was published 30 years later.

Rawls was focused on political philosophy and he was concerned with basic institutions that need to exist in order to have a functioning society. That is noticeable particularly in the second principle of his theory.

Two (or Three) Principles of Justice

You can read the two principles below with Rawls’ official description. The principles are serially ordered, which means that principle 1 takes precedence over principle 2.a that takes precedence over principle 2.b:

1. Basic Liberties: Each person has the same and indefeasible [permanent] claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: 
   a. Fair Equality of Opportunity: they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of same opportunities for all; and 
   b. The Difference Principle: they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society.

This general theory of justice provides a basic framework and understanding of what Justice is. From that, its applications and meanings still need to be defined and agreed upon by society in a specific context.

The first principle refers to the freedoms found in Bills such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Including things such as the right to live and lead a healthy life, to choose work, to have leisure and come and go as one please.

When it comes to transport we have a long way to go to achieve the first principle, considering that over a million people die from road violence every year and many more are injured or suffer from tailpipe emissions, that millions of people have limited access to work, healthcare, leisure and education due to the configuration of our transportation systems.

Note that Rawls’ theory sets the stage for high level principles that still need to be operationalized to have any practical application.

Quick Examples Applied to Transport Justice

Nevertheless, a theoretical foundation is necessary to ensure that metrics and procedures are consistent and ethically sound. An article published in 2020 (van Der Veen et al.) is a good example on how a meaningful indicator for the transportation sector can be developed because it is conceptualized from a general theory. An Accessibility Fairness Indicator is developed by identifying a study area, representative groups, relevant destinations, mapping accessibility and motility, determining thresholds and finally evaluating equity for each of the groups.

For an even simpler illustration of how that can look like in the transportation realm, let’s take the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes here in Canada as an example. Some may argue that it’s a good application of the second principle because even though dedicated lanes for motorized vehicles with two or more people are a form of unequal treatment, they help: “optimize infrastructure investments, encourage carpooling, manage congestion, reduce transportation-related emissions.” (Ontario, 2022).

However, if taken into account that:

• 25% of the population in Canada can’t drive and others don’t want to drive,
• other modes of transportation (bus, rail, cycling) have a much higher impact on congestion and emissions and
• many of the “least-advantaged” groups are overrepresented as those who don’t have access to motorized vehicles at all.

It’s reasonable to defend that HOV lanes fail both statements within the second principle of Rawls’ Theory of Justice. Not everybody has the same opportunity to use the HOV lanes and it certainly doesn’t offer the greatest benefit (if any at all) to the least-advantaged in society.

Principle 2.b is extremely relevant for Transport Justice discussions since measuring fairness in Transport Systems can be difficult due the challenges of gathering and comparing data from the entire population, the “least-advantaged” person can serve as the yardstick for what we want to strive for.

Walzer’s Sphere of Justice

Michael Walker is an American political theorist who opposes abstract political philosophy and supports a view that contextualizes the traditions and culture of a particular society.

According to Walzer, every good is a social good. Which means that even if two different types of goods cost the same dollar amount, they will be valued differently by each individual, social group or culture.

In situations where those differences are minimal, Walzer argues that its distribution can be ruled by free exchange. For example, a hairbrush or a watch can be more or less desirable or useful depending on who you are and which society you are a part of. But their social value is not significantly distinct.

When a social good is highly relevant, it has a very distinct meaning. In those cases, Walzer proposes that they require their own process, called Sphere of Justice, to determine how they will be distributed. Examples of fundamental social goods that have their own rules for access and distribution include things as: education and health. The aggregate of different spheres of justices forms what Walzer calls Complex Equality, where each sphere would have its own domain of challenges and solution in pursuit of fairness and justice.

Given the hyper mobility society that we live in, transport or, more specifically, accessibility is a relevant social good and requires its own Sphere of Justice. That means that the production and distribution of accessibility should be subject to its own rules and processes in order to be just.

The concept of Spheres of Justice is merged into Rawls’ Theory of Justice to differentiate the transport good, thus addressing one of the main limitations in Rawl’s theory where all social goods are indistinguishable from one another.

Applications To Transport Justice

In this blog post, we looked at some of the original texts from a few Social Justice Theories that have been informing how Transport Justice is being defined and shaped as a field of study. This is an important perspective to understand what are the underlying drivers, their limitations and opportunities for improvement.

After this initial grounding, we will probably explore more of the specific applications of Theories of Justice in the Transport field.