A bias often emerges when people discuss the fundamental rules of social justice. They either take equality of opportunity or initial distribution as the most fundamental dimension of social justice, ignoring social adjustment. Even if they do discuss social adjustment, it is often regarded as a “complementary” rule with a limited function. In reality, however, social adjustment is an indispensable part of social justice in modern society, just as important as equal opportunity or distribution according to contribution. They are all complementary to one another. With the advancement of modernization and the market economy, social adjustment plays an increasingly important role in society, developing from a supplemental form of “relief” to a basic principle of social justice that can ensure the safe operation and healthy development of society, improve quality of life, and enhance the capacity for social regeneration. Today, the fundamental ideas, contents, and functions of social adjustment cannot be compared to those that prevailed in the past. It is no longer possible to imagine modern society’s normal operation and healthy development without social adjustment.

1 The Meaning, Necessity, and Significance of Social Adjustment

Social adjustment is an important part of social justice in the modern sense. Together with the protection of basic rights, equal opportunity, and distribution according to contribution, it constitutes the fundamental system of rules for social justice in modern society. (Wu 2000) The term social adjustment refers to the necessary modifications made to the structure of social benefits after their initial distribution. These modifications are made for the benefit of society overall, such that a broad swath of society receive the benefits of development, thereby allowing the quality of society to be continuously improved. Strictly speaking, the term social adjustment has both a broad and a narrow meaning. In the broad sense, social adjustment not only implies a “safety net” guaranteeing the right to and conditions for “basic survival” but also ensures that “development” can be achieved for members of society. In the narrow sense, social adjustment only refers to the latter. This book uses “social adjustment” in its broad sense. If issues of initial distribution mostly emphasize the economic domain, then social adjustment emphasizes the social domain. In a certain sense, commercial insurance is also a kind of social “adjustment.” However, in contrast to commercial insurance, social adjustment does not take profit as its primary objective.

In modern society, the basic purpose (the fundamental idea) of social development is that everyone shares in it and universally benefits. However, for various reasons, this universality is often limited, which results in certain deviations in the direction of social development away from its basic purpose, thus reducing the quality of development overall. The implementation of rules for social adjustment can enable the principle of social justice to be realized to the maximum extent possible under existing social and historical conditions, such that this deviation can be somewhat corrected for, and the quality of social development improved.

In both the economic and social sphere, numerous forms of inequality and uncertainty have created injustices within society, negatively affecting its stable operation and healthy development. The major forms are the following:

The first is an unjust and imperfect distribution of social and economic resources. In a certain sense, this distributive structure is the concrete expression of the self-interest of all social strata, and it is also the direct embodiment of which strata are “powerful” and which are “disadvantaged.” Sometimes, the distributive structure will be to the obvious benefit of one stratum, which is unreasonable and unfair to the other strata. Furthermore, because the social organism is extremely complicated—especially given that the various links wrought by modern society multiply this complexity—the distributive structure for social and economic resources will inevitably contain certain gaps and omissions, causing imperfections and even creating unjust social phenomena. In short, the irrational and imperfect distributive structure is the direct root of many injustices.

The second is the element of risk that exists within a market economy. The market economy is born in the process of modernization and accompanies its advance, acting as the fundamental economic system within modern society. The market economy plays an irreplaceable role insofar as it rationally allocates resources, improves the efficiency of the economy, realizes equity in the economic sphere, and even promotes the overall process of social development. While it is inappropriate to ignore the importance of the market economy, it may also be inevitable for bias to arise if the market economy is mythologized as the most effective way to solve all problems. It should be noted that it is one-sided to discuss the effectiveness of the market economy beyond the unique scope of its application. The market economy is risky and has its own limitations. In terms of the basic goal of universally benefiting from or sharing in social development, the market economy does not at all seem to play a positive role in any direct or comprehensive sense. On the one hand, while free competition is an extremely important principle of justice in the economic sense, it is hardly suitable in the social sense. For example, it is difficult for free competition to be widely endorsed by vulnerable social groups or adapted to operate in accord with public welfare projects (such as education and environmental protection). On the other hand, even in the economic sense, the market economy has insurmountable limitations. For example, the market economy is sometimes too short-sighted to reflect long-term social needs. The spontaneity of the market economy also easily leads to “imperfect competition,” thus causing disorder and confusion in the market. Samuelson’s reflection on the doctrine of the “invisible hand” is very accurate: “After two centuries of experience and thought, however, we recognize the limited scope of this doctrine. We know that there are ‘market failures,’ that markets do not always lead to the most efficient outcome. One set of market failures concerns monopolies and other forms of imperfect competition. A second failure of the ‘invisible hand’ comes when there are spillovers or externalities outside the marketplace – positive externalities such as scientific discoveries and negative spillovers such as pollution” (Samuelson and Nordhaus 2010).

The third is the “hereditary” element of the family. Family certainly has an extremely important influence on an individual’s growth and social status. It plays an enormous role in children’s education, which directly affects how their abilities and other important qualities manifest and can even go on to influence the concrete conditions for their future survival and development. Generally speaking, people with better family backgrounds tend to have more ability, making it easier for them to obtain better social status. What’s more, such people are more likely to receive essential social resources, thus gaining a competitive advantage. In addition, the inheritance of property within the family also has an enormous impact on the specific opportunities afforded to members of society. “Clearly, there is some tendency for the affluence or poverty of the father to be visited upon the son. As Christopher Jencks and his associates report, the sons of families in the top fifth of the socioeconomic pyramid have average incomes 75 percent higher than those coming from the bottom fifth… Some of the causes of that differential are undoubtedly genetic or hereditary” (Okun 2010).

The fourth is individual talent and ability. From the perspective of genetics, there are large differences in individuals’ innate capacities. “However important the environment may be, we must not overlook the fact that individuals are very different from the outset. As a statement of fact, it just is not true that ‘all men are born equal’” (Hayek 1987). Accordingly, there exist large disparities in individual ability, because innate capacities are the essential foundation on which acquired abilities are formed. This disparity means that people from the same background with the same opportunities and working conditions can see mildly or even extremely different levels of achievement. If such an outcome directly corresponds to the distribution of income, without any subsequent social adjustment, then in the long run there will be a huge gap between people in possession of wealth and those without, and this gap will constantly grow wider in a compounding fashion, resulting in a Matthew Effect of accumulated advantage which will ultimately create a wide gulf between the rich and the poor.

In addition to the above, there are many other factors of inequality, such as inequity in education, discrimination according to gender or race, and age and seniority restrictions.

If a society places blind and excessive emphasis on equality in everything (including starting points, outcomes, etc.), it will inevitably approach conditions of egalitarianism wherein individuals lose their ability to live different kinds of lives, lack developmental goals and motivation, and forfeit their sense of responsibility and trust in society. Obviously, this is not in line with the principle of social justice and will reduce the efficiency of society. However, if inequality and uncertainty are allowed to develop “freely,” they will cause numerous injustices that will adversely impact equality and impartiality from the very beginning. The most direct and obvious harm is the excessive, polarizing disparity between the rich and the poor. This situation is bound to make many individuals feel a sense of relative deprivation, which will dampen their enthusiasm in work and weaken their sense of social responsibility. It is easy for marginalized behaviors to emerge among impoverished groups or for these groups to adopt a conflictual attitude toward society. The rising trend of inequality has become a complex system of restrictions and obstacles for development, set to reduce the degree of social integration, weaken motivation for social development, and increase the possibility of unrest. Even further, social development will deviate from its basic aim—the idea that everyone shares in and universally benefits from development—and this will reduce society’s organic integration, limit the effective realization of social potential, and ultimately cause social development to go astray to differing degrees.

It is evident that many forms of inequity can be eliminated and risk factors can be avoided through the implementation of social adjustment, so as to ensure the stable operation and healthy development of society.

First, social adjustment helps to ensure social development’s fundamental objective: that everyone can share in and universally benefit from it. In other words, the dignity of every member of society should be better guaranteed as society develops. Their potential should be continuously cultivated, their basic needs sustainably met, and their living standards constantly improved. By contrast, if social wealth is amassed by only a few people, then the fruits of social development will only be enjoyed by those people. This sort of development is not true development but is instead “growth without development.” “Growth was a means to an end, not an end in itself. The objectives were to eliminate poverty, illiteracy and disease, to increase the range of human choice, to give mankind greater control over the natural environment and thereby to increase freedom” (Griffin 1999). As a scholar points out, “The questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore: What has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If all three of these have declined from high levels, then beyond doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result ‘development’, even if per capita income doubled” (Seers 1969). Through effective social adjustment, it is possible to transfer social attention and a portion of social resources to those who find themselves in relatively unfavorable conditions with fewer means at their disposal, thereby closing or at least narrowing the wide gap between the rich and the poor. If this type of effective social adjustment can be carried on continuously, then the objective of social development—that everyone can share in and universally benefit from it—can be gradually realized.

Second, social adjustment helps to develop individual potential. In a society with a low degree of justice, the developmental prospects of individuals are limited, which has the effect of further aggravating injustice. This becomes a vicious cycle. Since those who only rely on social assistance to survive can only temporarily alleviate their anxiety over basic necessities, they don’t possess a genuine opportunity for fair competition and their ability to cultivate their own development remains limited. Therefore, even if the rule of distribution according to contribution is followed, it is still impossible for this subset of the population to enjoy “fair competition.” It must be noted here that social justice is not only concerned with the right to subsistence but also with the right to development. The latter is the principal objective of social adjustment. In the long run, if people lack the right to development, they will also lack the dignity they are due, will have few opportunities for development, and will not possess ability to grasp these opportunities. Through social adjustment, society should not only provide necessities for this portion of the population but must also offer other amenities such as essential educational resources, developmental opportunities, an impartial environment, and social welfare. If such amenities are provided, these members of society can be given an ordinary ability to develop or at the very least see their developmental ability increased, thereby universally cultivating their potential. As Rawls argues: “in order to treat all persons equally, to provide genuine equality of opportunity, society must give more attention to those with fewer native assets and to those born into the less favorable social positions. The idea is to redress the bias of contingencies in the direction of equality. In pursuit of this principle greater resources might be spent on the education of the less rather than the more intelligent, at least over a certain time of life, say the earlier years of school” (Rawls 1999). It is also worth noting that the positive effects of social adjustment are not short-term. Therefore, from an intergenerational perspective, the significance of social adjustment is possibly even more profound.

Third, social adjustment encourages social integration. Injustices such as social discrimination and the wide gap between the rich and the poor will ultimately produce various barriers, conflicts, and centrifugal forces dividing members of society, all of which will reduce social integration. The capabilities of society are thereby consumed for no reason and the regeneration of these capabilities runs into numerous impediments, which cause malfunction to proliferate. Severe social injustice will directly hinder the normal operation and healthy development of society and may even threaten its security. Effective social adjustment can play a necessary role wherein, rather than pursuing egalitarianism, it “trims the high to level the low,” thereby gradually eliminating or alleviating social injustices and ensuring relative harmony between each group within society such that centrifugal forces are reduced to the greatest extent possible and social integration is enhanced.

Finally, social adjustment is conducive to the historical perpetuation of social justice. In other words, it helps to realize intergenerational social justice. Social adjustment objectively plays an important role, since it can dissolve hindrances to the principle of social justice that arise at the “horizontal” level of society through means of the “vertical” historical process. In this way, the social vitality between generations is continuously strengthened, and social justice can be gradually realized in the process of historical development. For example, in terms of wealth inequality, the rules of social adjustment require that excessive income or property held by one portion of society gradually flow to other parties through methods of adjustment such as the income tax or inheritance tax and thereby become widely accessible to all members of society such that both present and future generations can universally benefit. Thus, even though one portion of society seems to have immense wealth at present, most social wealth will eventually become communal with the passage of time. The elimination of various unfair “hereditary advantages” and the creation of equal opportunity between generations—both advocated for by the rules of social adjustment—help each generation to enjoy equal competitive abilities and the necessary environment of equality, thus contributing to the gradual realization of the principle of equal opportunity in social justice. Altogether, the rules of social adjustment can generate a kind of useful “mindset” for social justice which carries historical significance. Under the influence of the “inertial force” caused by this “mindset,” the implementation of social justice for each generation can be actively promoted.

2 The “Legitimacy” of Social Adjustment

As has already been stated, social adjustment is indispensable. However, necessity is not the same as “legitimacy” or “validity.” In a certain sense, social adjustment is a kind of “levelling” (but not in the egalitarian meaning of the word) involving obvious “human intervention.” Social adjustment means that social resources are transferred or “adjusted” between members of society according to certain rules. Here, a question arises: Does social adjustment imply an inappropriate infringement on the personal domain (the basic rights of individuals)? In other words, is social adjustment “legitimate?” Does it have “validity?” To answer this question, three related questions also arise: How should the reasonable scope of the personal domain be demarcated? What is the relationship between individuals and society? What kind of responsibility does society bear for individuals?

Marx states that “it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world… ‘Liberation’ is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse…” (Marx and Engels 1979). In traditional society, due to the extreme backwardness of productive forces and the extreme scarcity of material wealth, people’s potential could not be fully developed and their dignity could not be guaranteed. Therefore, individuals’ subjectivity and the corresponding concepts of equality and freedom directly related to them could not be universally formed. In traditional society, “personal dependence here characterizes the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organized on the basis of that production” (Marx and Engels 1972). As a result, people did not enjoy an independent, private sphere. However, in modern society under the market economy, a sphere specific to the individual (the private sphere) has gradually taken shape, with liberty and equality at its core. The idea of equality affirms and protects individuals’ basic dignity, while the idea of liberty affirms and protects individuals’ difference and autonomy.

Since society is composed of countless individuals, the basic contribution of each individual (member of society) is both indispensable and equal. Due to the “prerequisite contribution” of each individual, the form of dignity unique to societies of the human species means that, accordingly, people possess human dignity.

The affirmation of individuals’ fundamental contributions and human dignity should take on a concrete form. If individuals are not entitled to the same basic rights, their survival cannot be guaranteed, their dignity cannot be preserved, and equality will lose its practical significance. In this regard, the basic rights of individuals are in line with natural law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood… Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

Obviously, the objective of equality is to safeguard the basic dignity of individuals—to provide fundamental protections for their survival and development.

The main contents of liberty freedom are the following. First, society protects the autonomy of the individual. As Mill states, “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it… The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” (Mill 2001). Second, society respects reasonable differences among individuals. Third, on the basis of these principles, there are spheres in which it is appropriate that people exercise freedoms. Fourth, rationality should be an important principle of freedom. Because people’s freedom should be restrained, it requires rational guidance. See the first chapter for more details.

The idea of liberty requires that different individual endowments, abilities, and concrete contributions be respected, the individual development and choice also be respected, and different treatment be given according to the different contributions of each individual to society.

Although the private sphere is extremely important, it is only one aspect of the problem. What needs to be seen is that individuals are not isolated. As modernization and the market economy advance, social differentiation and integration gradually deepen. Social cooperation therefore becomes an increasingly essential condition and the basic form of social existence and development. “Such rules may be followed … for the benefit of the group as a whole in the form of the goals of each being better served, even though each person might have been able to enhance the fulfilment of his or her own goals further by following a different strategy, given the strategy choice of others” (Sen 1991). Even the representative figures of liberalism, such as Rousseau, Rawls, and others, are agreed on this point.

Social cooperation is a prerequisite for the survival of each member of society. Social development requires the joint effort of all members of society. Individual talents can only survive and develop in the midst of this joint effort. Without society, individuals cannot live and develop. Society is an organic whole. “While the life of society is nothing but the life of individuals as they act one upon another, the life of the individual in turn would be something utterly different if he could be separated from society. A great deal of him would not exist at all” (Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse 2009). So individuals need association and cooperation. “Find a form of association which will defend and protect, with the whole of its joint strength, the person and property of each associate, and under which each of them, uniting himself to all, will obey himself alone, and remain as free as before” (Rousseau 1994). In fact, this is also the essence of social cooperation. Only when individuals cooperate effectively in society can their basic needs be met, their potential fully developed, and their respective values realized. “It is through social union founded upon the needs and potentialities of its members that each person can participate in the total sum of the realized natural assets of the others. We are led to the notion of the community of humankind the members of which enjoy one another’s excellences and individuality elicited by free institutions, and they recognize the good of each as an element in the complete activity the whole scheme of which is consented to and gives pleasure to all” (Rawls 1999).

Social cooperation involves not only synchronous cooperation but also asynchronous cooperation—cooperation between the current generation, past generations, and future ones. Social development is achieved through the efforts of each generation, the entirety of human history is driven forward by the cooperation between generations, and human civilization is perpetuated and developed through intergenerational social cooperation. Collaboration between generations is an obvious necessity and, in this sense, all generations have their own duties and responsibilities. Rawls says, “This community may also be imagined to extend over time, and therefore in the history of a society the joint contributions of successive generations can be similarly conceived. Our predecessors in achieving certain things leave it up to us to pursue them further; their accomplishments affect our choice of endeavors and define a wider background against which our aims can be understood. To say that man is a historical being is to say that the realizations of the powers of human individuals living at any one time takes the cooperation of many generations (or even societies) over a long period of time” (Rawls 1999).

Social cooperation is unique to human society. “By contrast with humankind, every individual animal can and does do what for the most part it might do, or what any other of its kind might or can do that lives at the same time. The range of realized abilities of a single individual of the species is not in general materially less than the potentialities of other similar to it” (Rawls 1999). Only human beings can, through social cooperation, accomplish things that cannot be undertaken by any one individual.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis above: In real life, although individuals and society exist as two relatively independent fields, together they constitute an organic social whole. They should not be treated as conflicting or exclusive poles. Doing so will result in many pointless debates and may even generate harmful conclusions.

Who, then, represents the whole of society (as social organism or social community)? Obviously, this representative cannot be an individual, but only an institution of social management such as the state.

The body of social cooperation (the social organism or social community) is most manifest in the state. Although a country is composed of many different members of society, it is not simply the sum of these members. Once a country is formed, it possesses a kind of relative autonomy. Even Rousseau, Paine, and other more radical theorists of innate human rights believed that a portion of these rights are “relinquished” to society. Theoretically speaking, the government is a country’s primary public authority and bears both responsibility for and obligations to members of society. “State action is embodied in a system of rights, and there is no element of it which is not determined by a bearing upon a public interest” (Bosanquet 2001). The obligation and responsibility of the state is realized through its guidance, coordination, and direct management of society—with these responsibilities and obligations especially prominent in the primary and intermediate stages of a country’s modernization. The “minimal state” advocated by Nozick is clearly incapable of fully realizing the principle of justice (Nozick 1974).

Social adjustment is primarily the responsibility of the state. First, individuals’ access to universal basic needs should be increased. These needs are multifaceted and include physiological needs, the need for safety, the need to belong, the need for respect and the need for self-realization. Policymaking should be based on these needs and strive to meet them to the greatest extent possible. Second, an equitable social environment should be constructed. There are many reasons for the manifold diversity visible in the different circumstances of different individuals, some of which are “natural” reasons and some of which are social and historical ones. In terms of the latter, society bears the responsibility for resolving such differences. In the long run, the most important element of solving this problem is the creation of an equitable environment by, for example, actively creating conditions of opportunity, eliminating factors of privilege, formulating relevant social policies, etc., all to provide equitable external conditions for members of society. Third, vulnerable social groups should be offered necessary assistance. The problem currently faced by such groups is the question of how to obtain the most basic conditions of life. This is the most direct concern for social adjustment and, as its main executor, the government should naturally place this issue on its agenda. Fourth, the state should furnish adequate conditions for development, paying attention not only to people’s most basic living conditions but also to the conditions that every member of society ought to enjoy. In other words, there should not only be a “poverty line” drawn for society, but also a “development line” and, accordingly, the government should provide the necessary social welfare measures to establish adequate conditions of development for members of society. When the degree of social development is at a low level, the main issue of social concern is poverty. When the degree of social development rises, then developmental conditions will attract increasing attention.

When considering social adjustment, two basic standpoints must be grasped simultaneously: First, the general interest of all members of society acts as the principle of the whole society. In a certain sense, social adjustment entails readjusting the structure of social interests. This raises the question: who should be its beneficiary? The purpose of social adjustment is to coordinate the interests of all social strata such that the central concept of social development—that everyone shares in and benefits from it—can be realized. Obviously, vulnerable social groups should be the direct beneficiaries of social adjustment, through which they can obtain social assistance. However, the majority of people in society should also be beneficiaries, at least indirectly, since they benefit from having an equitable social environment. Only in this way can the principle of social adjustment be consistent with the basic purpose of social development—allowing all to universally share in and benefit from it—while also retaining its vitality and thereby promoting the normal operation and healthy development of society in an effective fashion. Second is the principle of history, which carries two connotations. One is that social development is an historical process, as is the implementation and refinement of social adjustment. Therefore, when considering issues of social adjustment, a long-term historical perspective ought to be adopted, with no expectation that social adjustment can be completed in a single generation. The other connotation is that, in certain cases, the effects of social adjustment have a time lag. For example, for a party whose interests are temporarily “harmed,” social adjustment can help its offspring to obtain an equitable social environment, which will help them to enhance their abilities, develop their potential, and prevent possible injustices. Thus, in this sense, their offspring are also beneficiaries.

Social adjustment is in fact a form of social interference. A question therefore arises: Should there be a limit to this sort of interference? The answer is obvious: there should. Mill, in discussing the scope of individual freedom, offers the classic explanation: “Acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people… that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others” (Mill 2001). Everyone’s basic rights, including the right to fair treatment, should not be violated. Given the premise that the basic rights of individuals be safeguarded, every member of society doubtlessly bears a certain responsibility and obligation to society as a whole. Just as distribution ought to proceed according to contribution, so too should the obligations and contributions of individuals toward society be differentiated according to the individual’s actual ability, at least in terms of the resources for social adjustment. This is the primary reason that it is necessary to adjust social resources between the better-off members of society and the poorer members of society. However, what requires our attention is the fact that, in addition to this, social adjustment can grow excessive and thereby impair the basic rights of equality and freedom. One type of notably harmful tendency is when the state’s powers of interference into the lives of individuals are excessively strengthened on the pretext of providing for the public interest, severely infringing upon the personal domain. This is a kind of “alienation” of political power that will have very serious consequences for the normal operation and healthy development of society and against which people must remain vigilant. Here lies a profound lesson for our country.

3 Specific Features of Social Adjustment

There are two specific objectives of social adjustment: first, to provide a “safety net” that guarantees the people’s basic survival; second, to improve their quality of life and development ability. In concrete terms, social adjustment implies realizing full employment, adopting reasonable taxation, implementing effective social welfare policies, vigorously developing education, creating an equitable social environment, and so on. The design and arrangement of social adjustment over the long run must consider and solve both current and future related issues.

3.1 Full Employment

Full employment implies that any member of society who is willing to work, has the necessary abilities, and is of the right age should obtain a job with financial reward. Full employment should be the priority goal of a society, as it is of great significance for a society to achieve justice in a broad sense. For workers, getting a job means having a relatively stable main source of economic income, obtaining a certain social status, prestige, and power, as well as carrying out necessary social activities on equal terms. For a society, full employment is a precondition to eliminating poverty and alleviating the gap between the rich and the poor, and it is also a prerequisite for maximizing the development of human resources, enhancing social vitality, and increasing the total wealth of society. A high unemployment rate is very harmful to a society. For economists, “unemployment represents an underutilization of resources. People who are willing and able to work at current market wages are not being productively employed. To the unemployed individuals and their families, unemployment represents economic hardship… Unemployment not only costs individuals their paychecks, it can deal a powerful blow to their self-respect… Young people who remain unemployed for an extended period are especially prone to becoming alienated from society and turning to antisocial activities such as crime and drug abuse… Unemployment is very costly to communities as well” (Stiglitz and Walsh 2011). Obviously, serious unemployment will cause many social injustices such as poverty, an excessive gap between the rich and the poor, and resistance among members of society, thus damaging social integration and hindering the normal operation and healthy development of society.

In view of this, society should give priority to full employment and try every means to create employment opportunities for all members of society. This should be the basic component of social adjustment.

3.2 Reasonable Taxation

Taxes are the main source of a country’s fiscal revenue, and it is also the main source and foundation of funds needed for social adjustment. The main types are income tax and inheritance tax.

Taxation has two functions that serve social adjustment: first, the government can obtain the necessary public welfare funds through taxes to maintain the basic livelihood of disadvantaged members of society, such as low-income people and those without income, and to improve the quality of life and development ability of all members of society. Second, through income taxes, inheritance taxes, and other taxes, the government can appropriately reduce the excessive income and property of high-income earners, so as to effectively adjust or alleviate the disparity between the rich and the poor in the society and ensure the necessary integration and stability of the society. For example, as long as the rule of social adjustment is effectively implemented, the very wealthy individuals or families at present are often rich for only a few generations. The reason for this is that when the rich are alive, they need to pay progressive taxes, and when they die, their successors must pay inheritance taxes, which are not small in number. Take the inheritance tax in the United States as an example: the average tax rate of inheritance taxes and gift taxes in the United States is between 18% and 55%. The specific tax rate is determined according to the value of taxable heritage, and the highest rate is 55%, which is applicable to taxable transfer amounts exceeding 3 million US dollars (Chen 2000). In this way, no matter how much property a person owns, after paying progressive taxes and inheritance taxes and after several generations, most of these properties will eventually be owned by the society.

It is worth noting that the progressive tax and inheritance tax are fair in nature, although they play a kind of “levelling” role. In the long run, this practice will generate a “win-win” situation. This can be understood as follows. (1) High-income people should make special contributions to society. Every member has certain responsibilities and obligations to society, which manifests as their contribution to society. How much a person can contribute depends on his actual ability. It is a fair and reasonable way to link and synchronize one’s achievements in social wealth with the improvement of social public interests, so that the increase of the wealth of a few people and the improvement of the basic lives of disadvantaged people can be steered onto a benign path. As Rawls points out: “All social values—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage” (Rawls 1999). (2) Judging from the marginal effect of consumption and the satisfaction of individual needs, a relatively high income tax will not have much adverse impact on the basic living conditions of high-income earners. (3) It also makes sense from the perspective of intergenerational justice. The “complete transfer” of social wealth between generations does not conform to social justice; neither “too rich” nor “too poor” should exceed one generation. The “intergenerational inheritance” of high-income people’s wealth will cause uninterrupted social inequality. Therefore, inheritance taxes give the descendants of high-income earners the same equal starting point as other members of society as much as possible. The more the society develops and the higher the degree of social justice, the less high-income earners have to worry about their future generations. (4) Taxes can indirectly benefit high-income earners. Taxation is conducive to the guarantee of the basic living standards of people in difficult situations and the general improvement of the living standards and abilities of all members of society. These are also beneficial to higher income-earners, so that the social environment in which they live and work can not only maintain stable and fair conditions, but also be continuously improved. This situation is also beneficial for the stability of their living conditions and the accumulation of their wealth. This is a virtuous circle. (5) For some high-income people with apparent social responsibility, their contribution to “taxation” is also an integral part of their value self-realization. (6) A part of the social wealth of high-income earners is indeed obtained through social cooperation. Rawls’ argument that the increase of personal wealth is almost entirely attributed to social cooperation is certainly one-sided, but Nozick’s contempt for the contribution of social cooperation is also one-sided. For example, “well-maintained local streets benefit property owners by enhancing the value of property. Thus, it is reasoned that property owners should pay in the form of property taxes for the benefits they receive from streets” (Register and Grimes 2016). In this sense, it is in line with the principle of social justice to impose progressive taxation on high-income earners.

3.3 Social Welfare

The goal of social welfare is, based on social justice and social security, to make individuals and families believe as far as possible that their living standards will not be seriously damaged by unexpected events in social and economic aspects. This includes not only meeting the ever-increasing demand but also preventing first-time danger and helping individuals and families to make the best adjustment when faced with unexpected or unforeseeable disabilities and losses. Social justice and safety can be achieved through social security schemes such as social assistance, old-age insurance, medical insurance, maternity insurance, industrial injury insurance, unemployment insurance, social welfare, and special care.

Social welfare policies cover a wide range. Academic circles and relevant government departments have made numerous discussions and explanations on its concrete content, and this chapter will not repeat them. Here, the author just emphasizes the importance of social welfare as a part of social adjustment in the following aspects.

First, to ensure a safety net that guarantees the people’s basic survival. As mentioned earlier, there are numerous forms of inequality and uncertainty in society, such as the unjust and imperfect distribution of social and economic resources, the element of risk that exists within a market economy, and the “hereditary” element of the family. Because of this, the people have great differences in the specific situations of survival and development, and the disadvantaged may fall into a “survival crisis” due to the loss of their jobs or other reasons. For these members, society has the responsibility to provide them with necessary social assistance to ensure their basic living conditions. Otherwise, social development will deviate from its basic aim that everyone benefits universally.

Second, to improve the people’s quality of life and development ability. Social welfare should not only solve problems involving the “poverty line” but also pay attention to the “development line.” Society should provide the necessary “welfare” measures for all members of society, so as to continuously improve their quality of life and development ability. This is a higher level of social adjustment. It should be noted that these measures should be adapted to the specific level of social development and can be implemented step by step. Moreover, in terms of sequence of time, it should be implemented based on the principle of “survival first, then development.” In other words, the implementation should be carried out under the premise that a safety net for members of society can be ensured.

Third, an effective guarantee for the people’s future survival and development. Social welfare is not only about immediate measures, it is also of long-term significance. As an important part of social adjustment, social welfare is a kind of pre-institutional preparation and arrangement. It can not only solve the “current” difficulties of the disadvantaged but also enhance the people’s ability to solve “future” difficulties.

3.4 Universal Education

As mentioned earlier, before the process of modernization, education was not popular and it only served a few members of society. Education was divorced from the economic sphere, where laborers only relied on the master-apprentice approach to acquire production experience and labor skills. The rise of the modern industry has meant that the scale of production has expanded rapidly and labor has become more complex day by day. More and more workers are required to have specific professional knowledge and specialized skills. At this time, it is impossible to cultivate competent workers in the field of economic production alone. Naturally, people acquire these skills via education. As a result, two remarkable changes have taken place in education. One is that education has become popular. If a person does not receive the necessary education, it is difficult for him to become a qualified worker. Another change is that education is no longer regarded as a consumption investment without economic benefits or a pure cultural activity of leisure groups, but as a productive investment with positive significance.

These lead to change at the social level. On the one hand, education is necessary for every member of society; on the other hand, due to limited educational resources, not all people can receive the necessary education. Generally speaking, income is related to ability, and ability is related to education. As a result, differentiated education has aggravated the income gap among members of society. For example, in the United States, “those men who never finish high school and who work full time earned $19,000 in 1984; a male college graduate would earn about 70 percent more, at $32,000. Moreover, the unemployment rate of college graduates tends to be only one-half of less educated groups. Although the incomes of women and minority groups are lower than those for white males, the relative earnings and unemployment rates at different education levels are quite similar to those of white males” (Samuelson and Nordhaus 2010). In developing countries, “this correlation holds especially for those who are able to complete secondary and university education where income differentials over workers who have only completed part or all of their primary education can be on the order of 300% to 800%… if for financial and/or other reasons the poor are effectively denied access to secondary and higher educational opportunities, then the educational system can actually perpetuate and even increase inequality in the Third World nations” (Todaro 1989).

Because of this, society should have the responsibility to pay attention to the people’s education, which is a necessary measure to eliminate or at least slow down the unjust factors in the entirety of society. Only when members of society receive education can they “enter” that society and the market on equal terms. In terms of education, society should pay attention to the following things: First, it is extremely necessary to popularize compulsory education in the entire society. Only in this way can most people acquire basic labor skills and competitiveness, so that amidst fierce social competition, there will not appear to be a large vulnerable group. “The availability of education serves to reduce rather than to increase the effects of such difference in starting position… In this sense, education acts similarly to transfer taxation” (Buchanan 1986). Therefore, through large-scale education, members of society can not only obtain indispensable “shared opportunities” but also acquire the necessary ability and equal starting point needed for “differential opportunities.” Second, society should continuously improve the level of education in the entirety of society and expand higher education. With the advancement of modernization, the social competition at the middle and high levels will become fiercer. Therefore, if we continue to limit higher education to smaller groups of people, it will encourage harmful “elite education,” and thus aggravate the income differences among members of society and increase social inequalities. Although higher education is not compulsory, the government can still increase investment in it, expand its scale, and ensure its quality. The government can also mobilize the enthusiasm of the entire society and attract the attention of all social groups, so as to increase public welfare in higher education. Thirdly, attention should be paid to the vocational education of workers, especially to the vulnerable groups.

3.5 Constructing an Equitable Social Environment

In the long run, in order to effectively implement the principle of social adjustment, it is necessary to create a broad social justice environment. Only in this way can social adjustment truly become an organic part of the social organism and be widely recognized by members of all social strata, so as to play its due role. In this regard, we must do the following:

First, pay attention to the formulation of relevant social public policies. Society should formulate systematic policies closely related to the people’s basic survival and development, such as social assistance, employment, minimum wage standard, medical insurance, old-age insurance, compulsory education, unemployment insurance, maternity insurance, industrial injury insurance, social special care and welfare, etc., and ensure the authority, continuity, and stability of these policies. These public policies can guide and coordinate the implementation of social adjustment rules.

Second, gradually expand public welfare undertakings and take them to higher levels. From a feasible point of view, it is necessary to arrange the development of public welfare in the right order. The scope of public works should be expanded in a timely manner in response to the development of society, and policies should be connected to each other. In addition, the level of public welfare should be upgraded in a timely manner as social development increases. For example, when the degree of social development is at a low level, the main issue of social concern should be the people’s basic livelihoods. When the degree of social development rises, then developmental conditions should attract increasing attention. Once such an order is reversed, it will hinder the orderly development of public welfare in the future.

Third, to cultivate supporting forces at the social level. The government undoubtedly plays a major role in social adjustment. However, it is impossible for it to take care of all matters related to social adjustment. With modernization and the market economy advance, various social intermediary organizations, such as non-profit organizations and groups, are rapidly developing. Although these organizations cannot replace the government and play a major role in the implementation of social adjustment, they still play a positive and bigger role in promoting the concrete and effective implementation of social adjustment, because they can diversify the sources of funds needed for social adjustment and play a direct role in many other spheres. Therefore, the government can take advantage of these organizations and actively support and use their power to promote public welfare undertakings from various levels of society.

4 Several Related Issues

4.1 The Historical Characteristics of Social Adjustment

Strictly speaking, real social adjustment can only exist in modern society, because only in the modern society can we have sufficient social and economic resources such as social wealth as the basis for implementing social adjustment and a real social community.

Although social adjustment is an inevitable phenomenon in modern society, it should be noted that the implementation of social adjustment is also a process, and the gap between “the actual” and “the ideal” is narrowing with modernization advances. Moreover, the implementation of social adjustment is characterized by a “time sequence”; that is, it adapts to different historical development stages of modernization, and the implementation of social adjustment should show different contents.

The basic situation of modern economic development is the main reason why social adjustment takes on a historical character. “The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life” (Marx and Engels 1956). Modern economic development plays a restrictive role in the implementation of social adjustment because, first, the basic situation of modern economic development directly affects how social adjustment is implemented. Only when the modern economy develops to and its social wealth reaches a certain degree can a society have a certain amount of “surplus social wealth” after meeting the basic survival needs of its members. Only based on this social wealth can that society have social resources to implement social adjustment. Otherwise, social adjustment is impossible. Second, the basic situation of modern economic development has formed the general requirements of social adjustment for society. When a society’s economic level and market economy reach a certain level, the boundaries between individuals and social fields can be clearly defined, and the social risks rapidly increase. At the same time, the concept that everyone shares in society and universally benefits from it has become the basic purpose of social development, and thus social adjustment will be recognized by the entire society.

The historical characteristic of social adjustment reveals that, in any modern society or a society in the process of modernization, social adjustment is an inevitable social trend. Moreover, social adjustment is gradually implemented in accordance with the different development stages of modernization.

4.2 Social Adjustment and the Fundamental System of Rules for Social Justice

Social adjustment is an organic part of the fundamental system of rules for social justice. Together with other rules such as equal opportunity and distribution according to contribution, it constitutes social justice as a whole.

Although these basic rules of social justice play their roles at the same time in real social life, they have a logical order. Social adjustment is the downstream rule of social justice, and the upstream rules are equal opportunity and distribution rules according to contribution. It is precisely after the upstream rules have played their respective roles in society that there is a “gap” that needs to be filled, and thus the social adjustment rule exists and effectively plays a specific role in response to this requirement. Otherwise, social justice will be missing a part. In this sense, if there is no equal opportunity and distribution rule according to contribution, then social adjustment will lose the logical premise and the legitimate reason for its existence. This special order of social adjustment in the basic rules of social justice is a reasonable angle to understanding the organic nature of the basic rules of social justice and the functional scope of social adjustment itself.

Social adjustment also plays an important role in implementing equal opportunity and distribution according to contribution, ensuring that they can function normally and effectively. First, social adjustment is conductive to creating a good social environment for the implementation of equal opportunity. It secures the basic livelihood of the members of society, constantly improves their basic development conditions, develops their potential in general, and eliminates or at least alleviates inequitable factors and risks to a certain extent, so that members have “equal access” to their society. All of these have laid an indispensable foundation for the normal and effective implementation of equal opportunity. Secondly, social adjustment is also helpful for the effective implementation of distribution according to contribution. Although this rule is necessary, it should be noted that after its implementation, some new social gaps will inevitably be created. If we allow these gaps to develop without necessary adjustments, they will have a negative impact on the overall social justice, which will make it difficult to implement distribution according to contribution. Therefore, social adjustment creates the necessary conditions for the normal implementation of distribution according to contribution.

The integration of social justice rules also requires that, in a certain period of time, there should be a limit to the implementation of social adjustment. In other words, equality of opportunity and contribution-based distribution should be properly implemented so that the social justice rules reinforce each other and develop together rather than undermine each other. Liberalism pays too much attention to the first two rules—that is, equal opportunity and distribution according to contribution—so underestimating the rule of social adjustment is inevitable. Communitarianism, on the other hand, focuses too much on social adjustment, which actually damages the rules of equal opportunity and distribution according to contribution. If this is the case, it not only cuts off the upstream source of social adjustment but also makes social adjustment lose its legitimacy and seriously damages the vitality of society, which inevitably means that there are biased results. This is a problem that requires our attention. In addition, attaching too much importance to social adjustment, even to the point of extreme, will easily provide a “modern” excuse for some types of totalitarianism, thus causing very serious social consequences.

4.3 The Trap Regarding High Social-Welfare Spending

This issue is related to the above two issues. If a society does not manage well the historical and holistic characteristics of social adjustment, it will fall into the trap of spending too much on social welfare.

The basic purpose of social development is that everyone shares in it and benefits universally, which is an inevitable trend of human society. In order to serve its purpose and conform to the trend of social development, social adjustment is a necessary way and rule. However, when social adjustment is implemented, if its content accounts for a large proportion of the system of rules for social justice—that is, if a society invests much more in social adjustment than in equal opportunity and distribution according to contribution—then the abnormal or even morbid phenomenon known as high social-welfare spending will occur.

In some developed countries, this phenomenon is obvious. Since the 1940s, many western countries have attached great importance to welfare systems. “The pursuit of equality has been a major concern of all social democrats, including the British Labour Party. Greater equality is to be achieved by various strategies of levelling. Progressive taxation, for example, via the welfare state, takes from the rich to give to the poor. The welfare state has two objectives: to create a more equal society, but also to protect individuals across the life cycle” (Giddens 2008). After years of practice, these countries have established welfare systems with comprehensive programs, protecting individuals across the circle of life from cradle to grave. For example, “Scandinavian or Nordic welfare states, having a very high tax base, universalist in orientation, providing generous benefits and well-funded state services, including health care” (Giddens 2008). In the 1980s, in then West Germany, the social transfer payment rate accounted for 55% of the average tax rate, while Sweden and Britain reached over 78% (Zhou 2001). Admittedly, these welfare systems have played a positive role in guaranteeing the basic living and development conditions of most people in these countries. However, these countries often fall into the trap of “higher welfare” because they spend too much on social welfare.

This trap brings about various problems: first, a negative impact on efficiency. For many low-income earners, because their basic livelihood is fully guaranteed by the state, their enterprising spirit of work and even their enthusiasm for employment is reduced. For those with higher incomes, because they must pay too much tax, they will also lose their enthusiasm for work. For enterprises, “high tax rates are followed by attempts of ingenious men to beat them… One form of misplaced effort is on-the-job luxury financed by tax-deductible business expenses” (Okun 1975). For the entire society, because the expenditure on social welfare is so large and the national financial burden is so heavy that the society will cut the investment in production. Moreover, “because the people are used to relying on excessive welfare and public services, their desire to work is weakened, thus damaging their self-reliance” (Huang 2001). All this will reduce the productivity of the whole society. For example, “as a typical ‘welfare state,’ the thorny problems that Britain encounters is not only the financial burden and the inflation caused by it, but also economic inefficiency—that is, low labor productivity and the waste of economic resources. This problem makes the British government feel distressed as well” (Luo and Li 1982). Second, the damage to social justice. In a sense, excessive welfare has a certain element of egalitarianism, although it is a kind of “higher level” egalitarianism. Egalitarianism not only distorts equal opportunity but also undermines distribution according to contribution. Egalitarianism emphasizes that everyone has similar gains; in fact, egalitarianism is another kind of deprivation because it can throw people with strong abilities who make great contributions into deprivation. Egalitarianism is obviously against the trend of modernization and the law of the market economy.

Although China is not highly modernized, due to traditional egalitarianism and other factors, it is possible to cause some premature phenomenon of excessive welfare when implementing social adjustment, and against which the people must remain vigilant.