Abstract

This study examines the extent to which individuals' adherence to various principles of justice leads them to evaluate their income as (un)fair. We analyse individuals' evaluations of income (un)fairness in relation to their own subjective social position, based on their declared identification with a vignette representing a given social stratum, paying special attention to the predominant evaluation of unfairness. Based on an overview of various principles of justice, we analyse responses to an open question in order to establish whether adherence to any of these principles is associated with that subjective assessment. We compare this with the influence of the individuals' socio-economic characteristics relative to their objective social position. We use qualitative and quantitative data from a survey applied in 2024 to a statistically representative sample of 562 employed individuals from the province of Palena in Chile, selected randomly by district, household and individual. Results show that the principle of meritocracy based on education and entrepreneurship tends to be used to justify income inequality, while the opposite occurs with merit based on effort at work and the principle of need. However, some respondents' socio-economic characteristics-in particular, having lower levels of income or education-are also associated with the likelihood that they will rate their income as unfair.