John Rawls and the Case for Equitable Governance: Lessons for Policy and Business

John Rawls (1921-2002) was an influential moral and legal philosopher who left an enduring legacy of critical thinking about fairness, equity and the role of the state. A Theory of Justice (1971) is essential reading for anyone interested in equity in society as it provides a rigorous framework for designing societies that prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable—a vision that resonates deeply in today’s era of widening inequality and social fragmentation all over the world. Pockets of resistance are being pushed back and there has been a mass roll out of policies that have exarcebated social inequity. For ethical and moral academics and policy consultants, grappling with how to operationalise equity, Rawls’ thinking and analysis offers both theoretical clarity and actionable insights.

This article explores Rawls’ legal theory, its relevance to contemporary equity challenges, and its implications for government strategy. It can be used to inform wider thinking about policy and strategy in corporations and encourage debate about priorities and building systems and processes that improve lives rather than impair them.

Rawls’ Foundations: The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance

Rawls’ theory begins with a thought experiment: the original position. Imagine individuals tasked with designing a society’s rules from behind a veil of ignorance—a mental barrier that obscures their own future social status, wealth, class, ethnicity, gender, disability, talents, and other characteristics. Stripped of self-interest, they would rationally choose principles that protect everyone, particularly the least advantaged.

From this hypothetical, Rawls derives two core principles:

The Liberty Principle: Everyone has an equal right to basic liberties (e.g. voting, free speech).
The Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they:

Attach to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity.
Benefit the least advantaged members of society.

Rawls’ framework rejects utilitarianism (“the greatest good for the greatest number”) as insufficiently protective of marginalised groups. Instead, equity demands systemic structures that actively uplift those at the lowest levels of society in whatever form.

Equity in Practice: Translating Rawls into Policy

For governments and institutions, Rawls’ theory challenges policymakers to ask: Do our systems disproportionately harm the vulnerable, and how can we redesign them to prioritise fairness? Consider if this is the central question being asked by your government. Or perhaps, your government or board of directors are instead asking for example, ‘Do our systems disproportionately improve growth and wealth?’

1. Progressive Taxation and Wealth Redistribution

Rawls’ difference principle justifies progressive taxation—not as punitive wealth redistribution, but as a mechanism to fund public goods (education, healthcare, environmental protections) that enhance opportunities for the least advantaged.

Example: Norway’s sovereign wealth fund reinvests oil revenues into universal social programs, reducing poverty and fostering intergenerational equity.

2. Universal Basic Services

Rawlsian justice supports universal access to healthcare, education, and housing. These services act as “equalisers,” mitigating the arbitrary disadvantages of birth or circumstance.

Case Study: Portugal’s 2016 decision to eliminate university tuition fees for low-income students increased enrollment from marginalised communities by 23% within five years.

3. Fair Equality of Opportunity

Rawls argues that formal equality (e.g. banning discrimination) is insufficient. True equity requires proactive measures to level the playing field.

Policy Application: Germany’s “priority placement” system reserves apprenticeships for underrepresented youth, addressing structural barriers in vocational training.

4. Restorative Justice

Rawls’ emphasis on fairness over retribution aligns with restorative justice models. For example, New Zealand’s youth justice system prioritises rehabilitation over punishment, reducing recidivism rates by 40%.

Critiques and Counterarguments

Rawls’ theory is not without its critics. Communitarians like Michael Sandel (1953-) argue that the veil of ignorance is too abstract, ignoring the role of cultural and communal values in shaping justice. Others, like economist Amartya Sen (1933-), contend that Rawls’ focus on “primary goods” (e.g. income, rights) overlooks individual capabilities and freedoms.

Yet, it could be argued that these critiques reinforce—rather than negate—Rawls’ utility. His framework provides a starting point for adapting equity strategies to cultural contexts. For instance, Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission applied Rawlsian principles to Indigenous reconciliation, pairing reparations with systemic reforms to healthcare and education access.

Implications for Researchers and Consultants

For academics and private consultancies, Rawls’ work invites three key lines of inquiry:

Metrics for Equity: How can governments measure whether policies truly benefit the least advantaged? Tools like the Gini coefficient or multidimensional poverty indices offer starting points.
Balancing Liberty and Equality: How do equity-focused policies (e.g., positive action) coexist with individual freedoms? Rawls’ lexical priority of liberty provides guidance.
Global Equity: How might Rawls’ principles apply to international institutions? The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities), echo his emphasis on systemic fairness.

Corporations can apply Rawlsian reasoning to internal equity audits, inclusive recruitment practices, and supply chain ethics — ensuring their systems uplift the most disadvantaged stakeholders, both within and outside the organisation.

Consultants advising governments and corporations might leverage Rawls to:

Design equity impact assessments for legislation.
Advocate for participatory policymaking (e.g. citizen assemblies) that mirrors the original position.
Develop conditional cash transfer programs (e.g. Brazil’s Bolsa Família, 2003) that tie financial support to investments in health and education.

Conclusion: Rawls as a North Star for Equitable Governance

In an age of populism and polarisation, Rawls’ theory remains a vital compass for building societies where equity is not an afterthought, but a foundation. For academics, his work challenges us to refine models of distributive justice. For consultants, it provides a scaffold for translating ethical principles into actionable strategies.

As Rawlsian philosopher Norman Daniels aptly noted, “Justice is not a spectator sport.” It demands intentional, evidence-based interventions—and a willingness to center the voices of those the veil of ignorance prioritises: the least advantaged, the marginalised, and the unseen.

Further Reading:

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.
World Bank (2023). World Development Report: Reducing Inequality for Shared Prosperity.