公共政策與分配正義理論之探討：以2020年美國川普總統與民主黨競爭者政治主張之比較

自古以來貧富差距、分配不均、分配正義皆是重要的社會議題。本文藉由回顧分配的三大理論：自由放任主義、羅爾斯的正義論、效益主義，來探討市場與政府之間如何影響分配，接著再以2020年美國民主黨總統初選參選人：桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）、華倫（Elizabeth Warren）、拜登（Joe Biden）以及美國現任總統川普（Donald John Trump），所提出與分配相關的兩項政策，分別是學生貸款與高等教育政策以及個人、企業和遺產稅政策，來進行討論。研究者認為民主黨候選人提出與分配相關的兩項政策上，能夠依其分配理論解釋，除了反對自由放任主義的主張外，更有著追求效益最大化的效益主義的核心論點，以及隱含著羅爾斯的差異原則概念。川普的政策看似奉行雷根（Ronald Reagan）時期的稅改政策，概念為自由放任主義對於自由市場的概念，但其政策被歷史反覆驗證是錯誤的，也違反了效益主義所追求的最多數人的最大幸福，更造成貧富差距擴大、政府財政惡化和債務增加等負面效果。

關鍵字

分配不均；分配理論；分配正義；美國民主黨；美國民主黨總統初選；稅收政策；大學免學費政策

並列摘要

The problems of income inequalities and distributive justice is important social issues, but they are more pressing than ever at the present time. By reviewing the three major theories of distributive justice: libertarianism, Rawlsian, and utilitarianism, this thesis studies the policies proposed by the representative of the 2020 Democratic Presidential primaries candidates: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden in comparison with those of the incumbent US President Donald J. Trump. The study focuses on two policies related to distribution: (1) student loan debt reduction and tuition-free colleges, and (2) personal, corporate and estate tax policies. This thesis argues that the two policies related to distribution which proposed by candidates of the Democratic Party can be explained by certain theories of distribution. They not only oppose the idea of libertarianism, but also agree with fundamental idea of utilitarianism that pursuit of utility maximization. In addition, the policy also implies the Rawlsian difference principle. Trump’s policy seems to follow the former president Ronald Reagon’s conception that can be identified as the libertarianist view of free market, while it does not follow the utilitarian principle of greatest happiness. As a result, Trump’s distributive policies have negative effects such as widening gaps, worsening government finances and increased debt.