2019 · Q3 · Public interest and Rawls's theory of justice (20 marks)

📌

CSS 2019 · Q3 · 20 marks · Topic: I.4 Core Values — Rule of Law, Efficiency, Equity and Fairness, Responsiveness (equity and fairness) and I.3 Issues in Theory and Practice — Democracy vs Bureaucracy, Politics vs Administration, Efficiency vs Equity (efficiency vs equity)

Same idea asked again: 2025 Q2 (core values) · 2025 Q1(1) MCQ (social equity)

1. Question

Is Public interest only a simple summation of private interest? Argue in the light of the theory of John Rawls.

2. What the examiner wants

• A clear position in the first paragraph ("No").
• The summation view and its flaws (about 5 marks).
• Rawls properly explained: original position, veil of ignorance, two principles and their priority (about 8 marks).
• Application to administration and Pakistan (about 5 marks), with critics and a conclusion (about 2 marks).

3. Outline

• I. Introduction — answer first: No
• II. What "public interest" means
• III. The summation view
  • A. Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill)
  • B. Public choice (Buchanan, Tullock)
  • C. Four flaws
• IV. Rawls's alternative: justice as fairness
  • A. Original position and veil of ignorance
  • B. First principle: equal basic liberties
  • C. Second principle: fair opportunity and the difference principle
  • D. Priority rule
• V. Why Rawls rejects simple summation
• VI. Rawls in public administration
  • A. Frederickson's social equity
  • B. Pakistan examples
• VII. Criticism of Rawls
• VIII. Conclusion

4. Model answer

I. Introduction

• No. Public interest is more than the arithmetic sum of private wants.
• Adding up preferences tells us what people want; it does not tell us whether the result is fair.
• John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice (1971), gives the test that adding-up misses: would the arrangement be accepted by people who did not know where they would stand in it?

II. What "public interest" means

• The interest people share as citizens, not as consumers or members of a group.
• Three classic views:
  • aggregative — the sum of individual interests;
  • common-good — shared goods like security, clean air and justice;
  • procedural — whatever emerges from a fair process.
• Rawls sits closest to a fair-procedure-plus-justice view.

III. The summation view

• Utilitarians (Bentham, J. S. Mill): the right policy brings "the greatest happiness of the greatest number."
• Public choice (Buchanan and Tullock): there is no separate public interest; there are only individual preferences, combined through votes and bargaining.
• Appeal: simple, measurable and democratic-sounding.
• Four flaws:
  • tyranny of the majority — a large group's small gain can outweigh a small group's ruin;
  • unequal voice — the rich and organised are counted louder;
  • unequal starting points — wealth, education and gender shape what people can even want;
  • bad preferences count too — wishes based on prejudice or exploitation get added in.

IV. Rawls's alternative: justice as fairness

• Original position: imagine people choosing the basic rules of society before they know their place in it.
• Veil of ignorance: they do not know their class, talent, gender, religion or ethnicity.
• Effect: nobody can rig the rules in their own favour, so the rules chosen are impartial.
• First principle — equal basic liberties: each person has an equal right to the widest set of basic liberties (speech, conscience, vote, person) compatible with the same for all.
• Second principle — social and economic inequalities are acceptable only if:
  • fair equality of opportunity — offices and positions are open to all under fair conditions;
  • the difference principle — they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.
• Priority rule (lexical order): liberty first; then fair opportunity; then the difference principle. Liberty cannot be traded for economic gain.
• Note: Rawls does not demand equal incomes — he allows inequality that lifts the worst-off.

V. Why Rawls rejects simple summation

• Utilitarianism "does not take seriously the distinction between persons" — it lets one person's loss be cancelled by another's gain.
• Behind the veil, nobody would accept a rule that might sacrifice them for the majority's comfort.
• So the public interest must be filtered through justice: preferences count, but only within fair institutions.

VI. Rawls in public administration

• Frederickson's "social equity" (New Public Administration, 1968 onwards): equity is the "third pillar" of PA alongside efficiency and economy — a directly Rawlsian idea.
• Test policies by their effect on the worst-off, not only the average.
• Pakistan examples:
  • BISP targets the poorest households through the National Socio-Economic Registry — the difference principle in action;
  • Article 25(3) permits special provision for women and children; Article 38 promises social and economic well-being;
  • NFC Award uses poverty, revenue and inverse population density alongside population, recognising unequal needs;
  • quotas for women, minorities and less-developed areas in public service reflect fair equality of opportunity;
  • remote schools and clinics cost more per head, but equity justifies them.

VII. Criticism of Rawls

• Robert Nozick (1974): redistribution violates people's rightful holdings.
• Michael Sandel: people are not "unencumbered selves"; community and culture shape what is good.
• Amartya Sen (2009): better to remove real, comparable injustices and expand capabilities than design a perfect theory.
• Practical problem: identifying and measuring "the least advantaged" is hard for administrators.

VIII. Conclusion

• Public interest is a question of justice, not just arithmetic.
• Rawls shows that a policy serving most people while trampling a few is not in the public interest.
• For administrators, this means equal liberty, real opportunity and priority to the worst-off — the standard Pakistan's own constitution already promises.

5. 🎯 CSS Exam Perspective

• Time and length: about 30 minutes, three to four pages.
• High-scoring touches: answer "No" in line one; state both principles with the priority rule (most candidates forget it); bring in Frederickson to connect Rawls to PA.
• Must-cite: Bentham, Buchanan and Tullock, Rawls (1971), Frederickson, Nozick, Sandel, Sen.
• Common mistakes: writing a book summary of Rawls; saying Rawls wants equal incomes.
• Reuse: section VI supports any question on equity, social justice or core values.