Cited by 66Information Society and Technology TrendsPolitical Philosophy and EthicsICT Impact and Policies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Distributive Justice and the Value of Information: A (Broadly) Rawlsian Approach

Van Den Hoven, Jeroen, Rooksby, Emma·2008·Information Technology and Moral Philosophy

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Distributive justice in contemporary information societies concerns, among other issues, the distribution of information, information services, and information infrastructures. There is currently much enthusiasm about the potential of new information and communication technologies (ICTs), and the immense information resources contained on the World Wide Web, to improve the lives of those who have access to them. But at the same time, there is mounting concern over the uneven distribution of the new information wealth, both within nations and internationally. Some even fear that we may be heading for a regime of local and global ‘information-apartheid’ (Ratan 1995; Wresch 1996; Loader 1998; Schiller 1996), in which the ‘information-haves’ are segregated from the ‘information have-nots’. A host of empirical research adds force to such concerns. According to a 2005 UNCTAD study (UNCTAD 2006) the digital divide in the first years of the twenty-first century between nations is still wide. A person in a high-income country is more than twenty-two times more likely to be an Internet user than one in a low-income nation. In a high-income country, Internet affordability relative to income is more than150 times better than in a low-income nation. Even in lower-middle-income countries, the cost of twenty hours of inferior Internet service is nearly one-third the average monthly income. In high-income countries the cost of Internet service is affordable for most households,…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511498725.019

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A narrow focus on data redistribution runs the risk of crowding out other harmful effects of dataveillance that are ontologically different from questions of distribution across the social spectrum.

    “a narrow focus on data redistribution runs the risk of crowding out other harmful effects of dataveillance that are ontologically different from questions of distribution across the social spectrum.”

    From Social Injustice in Surveillance Capitalism (2017) · cites this paper as Van den Hoven and Rooksby 2008

  • Information is an essential all-purpose resource, much like income.

    “Information is an essential all-purpose resource, much like income (van den Hoven & Rooksby, 2008).”

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 30 · Cited by 66

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199106)42:5<351::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-3 · DOI
  2. Rawls, 1993, Political liberalism
  3. Mosco, 1988, The political economy of information
  4. 10.4324/9780203169537 · DOI
  5. Hollis, 1984, Positional goods, Philosophy, 18, 97
  6. Sen, 1992, Inequality reexamined
  7. 1995, Information technology and moral philosophy
  8. Pogge, 1989, Realizing Rawls
  9. 2006, The Digital divide: ICT diffusion index
  10. Garfinkel, 1981, Forms of explanation, rethinking the questions in social theory
  11. Rawls, 1971, A theory of justice, 10.4159/9780674042605 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Wresch, 1996, Disconnected: Haves and have-nots in the Information Age
  13. 10.4324/9780203048542 · DOI
  14. Dworkin, 2000, The sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality
  15. Loader, Cyberspace divide
  16. Schiller, 1996, Information inequality: The deepening social crisis in America
  17. 10.1017/CBO9780511611964 · DOI
  18. 10.2307/2108044 · DOI
  19. Dworkin, 1981b, What is equality? Part 2: Equality of welfare, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 283
  20. 10.1093/intqhc/12.1.5 · DOI
  21. 10.5840/soctheorpract19817315 · DOI
  22. Sen, 1990, Justice: Means versus freedom, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19, 111
  23. 10.1017/S0007123400006402 · DOI
  24. Dworkin, 1981a, What is equality? Part 1: Equality of resources, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 185
  25. McMurrin, 1982a, The Tanner Lectures on Human Value
  26. Ratan, 1995, A new divide between haves and have-nots?, Time Special Issue: Welcome to Cyberspace, 17
  27. Drahos, 1996, A history of intellectual property
  28. Walzer, 1983, Spheres of justice
  29. Rawls, 1999, A theory of justice, 10.4159/9780674042582 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Van Den Hoven, J., & Rooksby, E.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Venue
Information Technology and Moral Philosophy
Published
2008-03-31
Pages
376-396
OpenAlex
W2224889447
Cited by
66
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 7
FWCI
19.53
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Information Society and Technology Trends
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › ICT Impact and Policies
Keywords
distributive justice, value of information, John Rawls, digital divide, information inequality, information society, information and communication technologies, internet access, information infrastructure, global inequality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review