The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Distributive Justice and the Value of Information: A (Broadly) Rawlsian Approach
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Informational Justice: A Conceptual Framework for Social Justice in Library and Information Services (2015) · cites this paper as 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
- 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199106)42:5<351::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-3 · DOI
- Rawls, 1993, Political liberalism
- Mosco, 1988, The political economy of information
- 10.4324/9780203169537 · DOI
- Hollis, 1984, Positional goods, Philosophy, 18, 97
- Sen, 1992, Inequality reexamined
- 1995, Information technology and moral philosophy
- Pogge, 1989, Realizing Rawls
- 2006, The Digital divide: ICT diffusion index
- Garfinkel, 1981, Forms of explanation, rethinking the questions in social theory
- Rawls, 1971, A theory of justice, 10.4159/9780674042605 · DOI · Paper page
- Wresch, 1996, Disconnected: Haves and have-nots in the Information Age
- 10.4324/9780203048542 · DOI
- Dworkin, 2000, The sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality
- Loader, Cyberspace divide
- Schiller, 1996, Information inequality: The deepening social crisis in America
- 10.1017/CBO9780511611964 · DOI
- 10.2307/2108044 · DOI
- Dworkin, 1981b, What is equality? Part 2: Equality of welfare, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 283
- 10.1093/intqhc/12.1.5 · DOI
- 10.5840/soctheorpract19817315 · DOI
- Sen, 1990, Justice: Means versus freedom, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19, 111
- 10.1017/S0007123400006402 · DOI
- Dworkin, 1981a, What is equality? Part 1: Equality of resources, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 185
- McMurrin, 1982a, The Tanner Lectures on Human Value
- Ratan, 1995, A new divide between haves and have-nots?, Time Special Issue: Welcome to Cyberspace, 17
- Drahos, 1996, A history of intellectual property
- Walzer, 1983, Spheres of justice
- 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
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- 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