Welcome to follow
The Journal of Chinese Sociology
2026年3月9日，The Journal of Chinese Sociology（《中国社会学学刊》）上线文章Macro and micro fairness, common prosperity and subjective well-being: an empirical analysis based on the 2010 CGSS（《共同富裕愿景下的幸福感提升：双重公平论的视角》）。
| 作者简介
刘欣
复旦大学社会学系教授
主要研究方向：社会分层与流动、社区社会资本
胡安宁
复旦大学社会学系教授
主要研究方向：文化社会学、教育社会学、社会研究方法
Abstract
Rather than serving merely as an ideological construct, common prosperity can be conceptualized as an analytical concept amenable to both theoretical reflection and empirical investigation. When aligned with microjustice principles, it fosters efficiency and enhances individual well-being by enabling people to attain outcomes that they justly deserve. At the macro level, when common prosperity embodies macrojustice, it advances collective well-being and promotes happiness by reducing perceived uncertainties in social life. Drawing on data from the 2010 China General Social Survey (CGSS2010), this study finds that perceptions of micro-level fairness are significantly associated with recognition of microjustice principles, but not with endorsement of the macrojustice principle of minimizing income disparities. Conversely, perceptions of macro level fairness are significantly related to recognition of the income disparity–minimization principle, but not to microjustice principles. Both perceptions are negatively associated with endorsement of egalitarian principles, while each independently enhances subjective well-being, with their effects being additive.
Keywords
Common prosperity; Macro and micro fairness; Principles of macro- and micro-justice; Happiness
Introduction
Although extensive scholarship, both in China and abroad, has examined distributive fairness, justice and happiness, there remains a notable absence of theoretical work that explicitly bridges the concept of common prosperity—a term widely invoked in Chinese public discourse and official policy—with these themes. To address this gap, this article seeks to integrate the concept of common prosperity with theories of distributive justice and principles of fairness, while also examining its relationship to SWB (Huang 2019). By clarifying these theoretical intersections, the study argues that common prosperity is not incompatible with perceptions of fairness or experiences of happiness. This endeavor not only situates common prosperity within the broader theoretical framework of fairness studies, thereby aligning a concept rooted in Chinese political culture with international academic discourse, it also imbues contemporary fairness research with distinct Chinese contextual relevance.
Common prosperity here, is conceptualized through the dual lenses of macro- and micro-level distributive justice and their corresponding notions of distributive fairness (Jasso et al. 2016). Although closely intertwined, distributive justice and distributive fairness represent distinct analytical categories (Tian and Liu 2019). The former denotes socially sanctioned principles governing legitimate allocation, whereas the latter captures evaluative judgments of distributive outcomes by people, whether personal or collective, based on those principles. This paper argues that common prosperity aligns with both macro and micro levels of distributive justice, encompassing individual-level principles while also embedding societal level considerations. In this sense, common prosperity constitutes not only a normative vision of equitable distribution across scales but also a collective policy objective that seeks to reconcile the enduring tension between efficiency and fairness.
At the individual, micro-level, adherence to the principle of distributive justice grounded in contributions and abilities stimulates personal initiative and social vitality, thereby ensuring developmental efficiency. At the societal, macro level, respect for distributive justice enhances collective fairness by maximizing basic public welfare and appropriately constraining excessive income disparities. This dual level conception of common prosperity embodies a deliberate balance between efficiency and equity. It acknowledges variations in one’s contributions and capacities while fostering the attainment of commensurate rewards in accordance with micro level justice principles. Simultaneously, it aims to expand public welfare, reduce life uncertainties, and strengthen perceptions of effective social functioning that (potentially) collectively improves SWB. Perceptions of fairness at the macro and micro levels are associated with happiness through distinct mechanisms; their effects on well-being are therefore independent yet additive. Building on this theoretical framework, this paper advances a series of research hypotheses. Using linear regression models and a generalized propensity score (GPS) weighting approach, these propositions are empirically tested with data from the CGSS2010. Based on the findings, several policy implications are detailed. Note that throughout this study we use SWB and happiness interchangeably for rhetorical reasons. This should not pose a problem, as readers can easily infer the intended meaning from the context. However, we acknowledge that, strictly speaking, SWB is not identical to happiness.
Fairness, justice
and common prosperity
Perceptions of
distributive fairness
and principles of justice
The perception of distributive fairness refers to subjective evaluations of the legitimacy of income distribution or the allocation of other scarce resources—both among members of society and within the social system as a whole—based on established principles of distributive justice (Jasso 1986, 1993; Mark and Folger 1984; Younts and Mueller 2001; Tian and Liu 2019). It highlights cognitive and affective dimensions of individual responses to distributive outcomes (Cohen and Greenberg 1982; Mueller and Landsman 2004). As several scholars have observed, defining the perception of distributive fairness necessarily entails consideration of the evaluator, the object being evaluated and the underlying principles of justice (Brickman et al. 1981; Deutsch 1985; Jasso et al. 2016). Among these, the evaluator denotes individual members of society, whereas the object being evaluated may refer to either other people (in relation to the perceiver) or society as a whole. Evaluators may assess whether others’ contributions and rewards are commensurate or else examine the consistency between their own efforts and outcomes.
The perception of micro level distributive fairness can be understood as judgments regarding the legitimacy of income or resource allocation at the personal level, grounded in the principles of microjustice. Conversely, the perception of macro level distributive fairness refers to assessments of the legitimacy of income or resource distribution at the societal level, in accordance with the principles of macrojustice (Tian and Liu 2019). Both macro and micro level perceptions of fairness thus represent individual cognitive judgments corresponding to the distinct principles of justice that persons recognize. It is therefore essential to analytically distinguish between macro and micro level principles of justice and the ways in which individuals internalize and endorse them.
A central objective of this study is to examine the relationship between individual perceptions of macro and micro level fairness in relation to the recognition of corresponding justice principles rather than evaluating the actual distribution of resources or the principles themselves. In this sense, said perceptions constitute subjective, cognitive judgments at the individual level. Empirically, this analysis focuses on how individual members of society understand and evaluate the principles of macro and micro level justice as reflected in their respective (subjective) perceptions of fairness.
Brickman et al. (1981, 178) posit that micro level justice rests on the principle that an individual’s rewards should be proportional to their contributions, that is, the principle of desert that allocates resources according to effort, ability, or contribution. Formally, this relationship can be represented as Y = f(X), where an individual’s reward (Y) is a function of their contribution (X). In this formulation, Y may denote income or opportunity, while X may represent effort, contribution or ability. Accordingly, any distributive rule that allocates Y to people on the basis of their X—for example, assigning income according to effort, contribution or ability—constitutes a principle of micro level justice. Importantly, the application of micro level justice principles place no a priori constraint on the overall pattern of distribution. For instance, if all exert equal effort, the resulting income distribution should be equal; if their efforts differ, the distribution should be correspondingly unequal (Sabbagh 2001). In the first case, aggregate equality emerges; in the second, inequality arises. Thus, a distribution that is fair to each individual under the principle of micro level justice does not necessarily yield equality at the societal level (Sabbagh 2001).
However, an unequal distribution of resources that adheres to the principle of desert can still be regarded as just if it benefits the least advantaged members of society—an idea that resonates with Rawls’s difference principle. Rawls (2001, 42–43) contends that since inequality cannot be entirely eliminated, the critical question is what forms of inequality may be deemed acceptable. Inequality, he argues, becomes legitimate when it serves to maximize the advantage of the least privileged.
In contrast to the microjustice principle, which focuses on proportionality at the individual level, the principle of macrojustice concerns the fairness of distribution across society as a whole. Under this principle, individual differences in contribution are not directly considered. Rather, redistribution is guided by adjustments to the overall societal allocation of resources. Conceptually, this can be represented as Y = f(Y)—that is, individual rewards (Y) are calibrated in relation to their aggregate distribution within society (Brickman et al. 1981, 178). For example, establishing average wage benchmarks or setting minimum and maximum income thresholds, functions to regulate both the level and structure of income distribution in a society. While the microjustice principle emphasizes desert the macrojustice principle prioritizes the maximization of collective welfare (Rawls 2001, 132–133). In this sense, the foundational tenets of macrojustice at the societal level can be summarized as “maximizing the minimum” and appropriately “limiting the maximum” (Sabbagh 2001), ensuring that distributive arrangements simultaneously advance social equity and maintain systemic stability.
It is important to note that distinguishing between perceptions of fairness and the principles of justice at both the micro and macro levels, and recognizing their logical correspondence, implies the following assumption. As elements of cognitive structure, subjective understandings of justice principles develop through a relatively long-term process and, once established, tend to remain as more stable features of an individual’s cognitive framework. In contrast, perceptions of fairness are more contextually contingent; they shift with changing social circumstances as people make distributive judgments in specific situations, drawing upon their existing understandings of justice principles. Accordingly, the notion of fairness perception adopted in this study refers to evaluations that are based on or derived from pre-existing recognized justice principles. This said, fairness perceptions and justice principles cannot be totally disentangled. For this reason, the following discussion considers both macro- and micro-level fairness and their corresponding justice principles in order to elucidate certain theoretical implications of the concept of common prosperity. It is also worth noting that one’s understanding of justice principle is stable, but that does not mean that it resists changing. In fact, the connection of fairness perceptions with justice principles would suggest that the persisting exposure to a different social setting could trigger the transition in the once-stable cognitive attributes. What differentiates justice principles from fairness perceptions is the extent of relative stability.
Common prosperity
and justice
Common prosperity represents a form of social well-being that harmonizes with both micro- and macro level principles of justice to balance efficiency and fairness. At the micro level, common prosperity aligns with the principle of microjustice. The principle of desert posits that resources should be distributed in proportion to contributions and efforts made by individuals (Homans 1961). This framework acknowledges inherent differences among people and allocates resources according to varying levels of ability, effort or actual contribution (Deutsch 1975). Consequently, it affirms rather than negates individual differentiation. The notion of common prosperity similarly emphasizes that “prosperity must be achieved through diligence and wisdom” (Xi 2021)—a formulation that resonates with the emphasis on effort, contribution and ability embedded in microjustice. In real social contexts, where disparities in individual capacities and endeavors are inevitable, absolute egalitarian distribution would be unjust to those who are innovative and industrious (Gao 2021). Thus, the principle of common prosperity, then, inherently incorporates the logic of microjustice rather than contradicting it.
Further, common prosperity is efficient precisely because it does not conflict with the principle of microjustice. In the pursuit of common prosperity, individual effort, contribution and ability serve as essential driving forces of development. The principle of microjustice affirms the value of these qualities, thereby implicitly recognizing the legitimacy of unequal resource distribution based on differential effort, contribution or ability. Accordingly, legitimate avenues for individual wealth accumulation—whether through diligent labor, lawful entrepreneurial earnings derived from factor contributions, or the accumulation of human capital and professional innovation by highly skilled workers—represent manifestations of enhanced factor productivity. Conversely, the application of absolute egalitarianism in income distribution, treating citizens identically regardless of their labor, contribution or capability, would produce unfairness toward those who are perceived to demonstrate more hardwork, diligence and competence. Such a system would undermine the incentives that sustain productive efficiency, erode developmental momentum, and ultimately risk stagnating societal progress (Gao 2021).
Common prosperity is likewise consistent with the principle of macrojustice. While it recognizes the efforts, contributions and abilities of individuals—thereby enhancing the efficiency of productive factors—it does not assume that distributive justice at the micro level imposes a priori constraints on macro level distributive outcomes. Because members of society differ in their capacities and opportunities for effort, contribution and achievement, substantial disparities in income and resource distribution inevitably emerge. To mitigate these disparities, the state operationalizes macrojustice through institutional mechanisms such as taxation, social security and transfer payments—applying principles such as “maximizing the minimum income” and “appropriately limiting the maximum income.” These arrangements aim to equalize access to basic public services and, in line with Xi (2021), to “legally protect legitimate income while reasonably regulating excessively high incomes.” In doing so, they narrow the gap in income and consumption to a reasonable range and promote the equitable sharing of public resources, particularly across the domains of “basic, universal and bottom-line social security.” Thus, an essential dimension of common prosperity lies in ensuring that all members of society enjoy fundamental life opportunities, essential needs and a baseline of welfare necessary for survival and development (Cai 2021).
In sum, in the pursuit of common prosperity through high-quality development, adherence to the principle of microjustice embodies the notion that “common prosperity must be achieved through diligence and wisdom.” This approach effectively stimulates the efficiency of productive factors and, as Xi (2021) cautions, helps to “prevent falling into the trap of welfare dependence.” At the same time, respect for the principle of macrojustice ensures that “the cake is well distributed, forming a reasonable distribution pattern that everyone can enjoy” (Xi 2021). Thus, common prosperity is fundamentally and ideally consistent with the principles of both macro and micro level justice, balancing the pursuit of efficiency with the safeguarding of fairness.
Common prosperity,
macro and micro justice
and the enhancement
of happiness
Since common prosperity embodies the principles of both macro and micro level justice, the key to enhancing individual happiness lies in the extent to which members of society reach a shared understanding of these justice principles. Individual well-being is closely linked to perceptions of distributive fairness, which are, in turn, shaped by one’s recognition and internalization of justice principles. Existing studies consistently demonstrate that stronger perceptions of distributive fairness are associated with higher levels of happiness (Huang 2019; Oishi et al. 2011; Sun 2016; Xu and Chen 2017; Zhang and Tan 2014).
Accordingly, by distinguishing between macro and micro level principles of justice and their associated perceptions of fairness, two distinct pathways can be identified linking the recognition of justice principles to individual happiness. In the first pathway, those who endorse the principle of microjustice develop a corresponding perception of micro-level fairness, which subsequently enhances their sense of happiness. In the second pathway, those who recognize and affirm the principle of macrojustice cultivate a perception of macro level fairness, which likewise contributes to their SWB.
To substantiate the first pathway, evidence is required across two sequential stages. The first stage involves examining the correlation between individual perceptions of micro-level fairness and their corresponding recognition of microjustice principles. A positive correlation between these variables—whereby stronger recognition of microjustice principles corresponds to stronger perceptions of micro-level fairness—would support the argument that perceptions of distributive fairness at the micro level reflect evaluations of the legitimacy of income or resource allocation based on microjustice principles. Given that, in the microjustice formulation (Y = f(X)), X represents effort, contribution or ability, corresponding distributive rules can be derived for each of these dimensions.
Since China’s reform and opening-up in the late 1970s, over four decades of market-oriented transformation have shifted the economic structure of the nation. The share of public ownership has declined while private ownership has expanded, allowing market mechanisms to play an increasingly important—and even dominant—role in resource allocation and income distribution. Consequently, those who more strongly endorse the principle of desert are likely to be more accepting of market-based distributive outcomes and to perceive greater fairness at the micro level. Based on the available measures in our dataset, we therefore propose Hypotheses 1a and 1b:
Hypothesis 1a: The more one recognizes the principle of effort, the stronger their perception of micro fairness.
Hypothesis 1b: The more one recognizes the principle of ability, the stronger their perception of micro fairness.
The second stage concerns the effect of micro-level fairness on individual happiness. When the previously defined concept of micro-level distributive fairness is applied to individual evaluators, it can be interpreted as the perception of whether one’s own outcomes align with the principles of microjustice. Under the said effort and ability based desert rules that underpin micro-level distribution, such a perception reflects how a person evaluates whether they have received the rewards they “deserve” (or not). Accordingly, micro-level fairness represents the extent to which expectations of deserved rewards—those corresponding to one’s effort, contribution or ability—are fulfilled. As a fundamental dimension of individual life (Alwin 1987), the fulfillment of reward expectations constitutes a crucial determinant of SWB (Ahmed 2010; Ekici and Koydemir 2016). Prior research further indicates that perceptions of micro-level distributive fairness, as an effective psychological mechanism, can buffer the negative effects of income inequality on happiness (Huang 2019). On this basis, we propose Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 2: The stronger the micro fairness perceived, the greater their happiness.
Two forms of evidence are required to substantiate the second pathway. The first concerns the correlation between perceptions of macro level fairness and recognition of macrojustice principles. A positive correlation—whereby stronger endorsement of macrojustice principles corresponds to stronger perceptions of macro level fairness—would support our argument that perceptions of macro distributive fairness are grounded in the recognition of macrojustice principles. It would be indicative of individual evaluations of the legitimacy of income and resource distribution at the societal level.
The principles of macrojustice can be operationalized through specific distributive rules, such as maximizing minimum income or minimizing income disparities. In contrast to the microjustice logic—where people who believe in “desert” tend to accept market outcomes and therefore see more fairness at the individual level—those who support greater equality through redistribution are more likely to endorse macrojustice principles and, in turn, view society as fairer overall. Considering this, and based on the available items in the survey data (shown below), we propose Hypothesis 3:
Hypothesis 3: The more one agrees with the principle of minimizing income disparities, the stronger their perception of macro fairness.
The second form of evidence pertains to the effect of perceptions of macro level fairness on happiness. There are several mechanisms through which perceptions of macro fairness influence individual well-being. First, through shaping individuals’ sense of societal functioning and stability, thereby reducing uncertainty in everyday life. As an indicator of people’s perception of overall social efficiency, perceived macro fairness not only enhances collective well-being (Santas 2010) but also reinforces peoples’ confidence in the predictability and orderliness of their social environment. As Rawls’s metaphor of the “veil of ignorance” suggests (Rawls 1999, 118), when members of society remain unaware of their own position within the overall scheme of income distribution, a reduction in existential uncertainty derives from the assurance that most can attain a basic level of welfare. Such is a reflection of the macrojustice principle aimed at maximizing overall social well-being.
An individual’s psychological sense of life’s meaning constitutes another key mechanism linking perceptions of macro level fairness to happiness. Fairness and justice are universal moral values—people generally desire to live in a world that is equitable and just. When people perceive their society as fair and just, they procure certain psychological support that reinforces their sense of meaning, order and control in life (Lerner 1980). As an individual’s perception of the fairness and justice of income distribution within society, then, macro distributive fairness can therefore shape one’s sense of meaning in life, which, in turn, enhances SWB (Dalbert 2001). Accordingly, the stronger one’s perception of macro level fairness, the greater their reported happiness.
The effect of macro level fairness perceptions on individual happiness is also independent of perceptions of micro level fairness. The Easterlin Paradox (Easterlin 1974) suggests that although growth in national wealth may raise individual happiness in the short term, it does not produce a sustained long-term increase in well-being. This observation underscores the independent influence of the individual’s evaluation of society as a whole on their happiness (Wu 2016). Similarly, Martin Whyte’s (2010) research on Chinese society reveals that even when the individual’s socioeconomic status is relatively low, a strong perception of macro level fairness can nonetheless enhance their SWB. Specifically, Whyte designed and implemented a nationwide survey to inspect Chinese people’s sense of fairness, and he finds that the improvement of living standards over the past several decades driven by economic prosperity provides the basis for a relatively high level of life satisfaction among Chinese citizens. In this regard, the macro level fairness serves to enhance SWB. Based on this reasoning, we propose Hypothesis 4:
Hypothesis 4: The stronger the perception of macro fairness among individuals, the greater their happiness.
Although both perceptions of macro level fairness and micro level fairness contribute to enhancing individual happiness, the mechanisms through which they operate differ. The mechanism associated with micro level fairness centers on the fulfilment of individual expectations for deserved rewards based on microjustice principles, such as effort and ability. In contrast, the mechanism of macro level fairness operates through individual perceptions of effective societal functioning and reduced life uncertainty. However, while an effectively functioning society may reduce uncertainty, it does not necessarily guarantee that peoples’ efforts will be rewarded as they (perceive to) deserve. Conversely, the fulfilment of deserved expectations at the individual level ensures fairness from a microjustice perspective but may generate inequality at the societal level, which, under macrojustice principles, could be perceived as unfair.
These differing mechanisms render the effects of macro and micro level fairness on happiness additive. This is to say, when people perceive both societal and personal level distributions as fair, their happiness reaches its highest point. When both are perceived as unfair, happiness is lowest. When only one is perceived as fair, happiness remains moderate. Based on this reasoning, we propose Hypothesis 5:
Hypothesis 5: Happiness is at its highest when both the perception of macro fairness and the perception of micro fairness are perceived as fair; happiness is at its lowest when both are perceived as unfair, and moderate when one is perceived as fair and the other as unfair.
Moreover, egalitarianism conflicts with the principle of desert, making it difficult for effort and ability to be adequately rewarded. Considering this, we propose Hypothesis 6a. At the same time, egalitarianism undermines overall social welfare, as absolute equality in distribution may ultimately lead to collective impoverishment (Gao 2021). Therefore, recognition of egalitarian distributive principles cannot serve as a foundation for perceptions of macro level fairness within a market-oriented economy. On this basis, we propose Hypothesis 6b:
Hypothesis 6a: The perception of micro fairness is negatively correlated with the recognition of egalitarian principles.
Hypothesis 6b: The perception of macro fairness is negatively correlated with the recognition of egalitarian principles.
Data and methods
Data
The data used in this study are drawn from the 2010 wave of the China General Social Survey, conducted by the Chinese Survey and Data Center at Renmin University of China. The CGSS2010 comprises 11,783 valid samples, including 7222 urban and 4561 rural respondents. Details regarding the sampling design and procedures are provided in the China General Social Survey Report (China Survey and Data Center at Renmin University of China, China General Social Survey Project Team 2009).
Although CGSS2010 is not the most recent dataset released by the project, it uniquely contains the core variables required for this analysis—specifically, perceptions of macro level fairness, micro level fairness and corresponding justice principles—which are either absent or incomplete in subsequent survey waves. To re-iterate, this article focuses on examining the relationship between individual perceptions of macro and micro level fairness and corresponding recognition of justice principles. While these correlations may be influenced by institutional contexts, the underlying theoretical logic remains broadly generalizable. Moreover, the notion of common prosperity is not a newly introduced policy concept (Zhou and Shi 2022). Rather, it has been a recurring theme in China’s reform trajectory, closely linked to debates surrounding “letting some get rich first” and the balance between individual and collective fairness. When CGSS2010 was administered, these same issues were already salient—likely explaining the inclusion of related survey items in the 2010 questionnaire. Taken together, both the availability of relevant variables and the social context of data collection make CGSS2010 an effective and appropriate dataset for the present study.
Measurements
The primary dependent variable in this study is individual subjective happiness. This is measured by the question: “Overall, do you consider your life to be happy?”. Respondents selected from five options. These are: (1) very unhappy; (2) somewhat unhappy; (3) neither happy nor unhappy; (4) somewhat happy; and (5) completely happy. Values were assigned on a scale from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater happiness.
The key independent variables are perceptions of micro level fairness and perceptions of macro level fairness. Perception of micro fairness was measured by the question: “Given factors such as your educational background, work ability, and experience, do you think your current income is fair?”. Perception of macro fairness was measured by the question: “Overall, do you think today’s society is fair?”. Both questions used a five-point Likert Scale: (1) unfair; (2) somewhat unfair; (3) neutral; (4) somewhat fair; and (5) fair. For analytical simplicity and to ensure more concentrated distributions, the five-point responses were recoded into a three-point scale as such: options 1 and 2 were combined as unfair (and assigned a value of 1); option 3 was coded as neutral (2); and options 4 and 5 were combined as fair (3).
To test the hypotheses concerning the relationships between the recognition of microjustice principles and perceptions of micro-level fairness, as well as between the recognition of macrojustice principles and perceptions of macro level fairness, we employed several questionnaire items related to both justice dimensions. To measure recognition of the effort rule under microjustice, respondents were asked: “Do you agree that most of an individual’s achievements are earned through hard work?”. Recognition of the ability rule was measured by the question: “Do you agree that social inequality is mainly caused by individuals’ innate abilities?”. For both questions, the response options were: (1) strongly disagree; (2) somewhat disagree; (3) neither agree nor disagree; (4) somewhat agree; and (5) strongly agree.
An essential aspect of macrojustice is the reduction of social inequality. Accordingly, recognition of the income disparity minimization rule was assessed with the question: “Do you agree that the government can reduce the gap between the rich and the poor through taxation and spending?”. Finally, recognition of the egalitarianism principle was measured by the question: “Do you agree that, to reduce income inequality, higher taxes should be imposed on the wealthy?”. The response options for both questions were identical to those used above. Based on respondents’ answers, each variable representing micro and macro level justice principles was assigned a value ranging from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating stronger agreement with the respective principle.
In addition to the primary variables described above, several control variables were included in the analysis. These comprise: gender (a binary variable, 0 = female, 1 = male); age (a continuous variable); years of education (a continuous variable); the natural logarithm of personal occupational income (a continuous variable); Communist Party of China (CPC) membership (a binary variable, 0 = no, 1 = yes); marital status (a binary variable, 0 = other, 1 = married with a spouse); place of residence (a binary variable, 0 = rural, 1 = urban); and region (a categorical variable, 1 = eastern, 2 = central, 3 = western). Descriptive statistics for the independent and control variables are presented in Table 1.
Analytical strategy
Hypotheses 1–3 examine the correlations between perceptions of micro and macro level fairness and the corresponding recognition of distributive justice principles. To test these relationships, we employed multiple linear regression models, using both perceptions of micro fairness and macro fairness as the dependent variables, respectively. The independent variables include recognition of the effort rule, ability rule, welfare-maximization principle, and egalitarian principle.
Hypotheses 4 and 5 focus on the causal effects of fairness perceptions on individual happiness. Taking the control variables into account, we again applied multiple linear regression models to explore the relationship patterns between different combinations of fairness perceptions and subjective happiness.
For data analysis, three methodological clarifications are necessary. First, although both the perception of fairness and happiness are ordinal variables, we did not employ ordinal logistic regression because the proportional-odds assumption required for such models was not satisfied. Moreover, the regression coefficients derived from ordinal logistic models are not directly comparable across different specifications (Karlson et al. 2012), which does not align with the analytical objectives of this study. To address these limitations, we adopted multiple linear regression models, which provide more interpretable and comparable coefficient estimates under these circumstances (Mood 2010).
Second, when analyzing the correlations between perceptions of micro and macro level fairness and the various justice principles, we excluded cases in which the reported values for perceptions of micro and macro fairness were identical. In such cases, it is impossible to empirically distinguish between the two types of fairness. Including these cases could result in the correlation between specific justice principles and one type of fairness being spuriously transferred to the other, thereby confounding the empirical results. This exclusion does not introduce selection bias for two reasons. First, the present study focuses on examining associations between fairness perceptions and justice principles rather than establishing causal relationships. Second, this exclusion was applied only to the analysis of correlations between fairness and justice principles; the full sample was retained for analyses examining the relationships between different combinations of fairness perceptions and happiness.
Finally, when examining the effects of different combinations of perceptions of macro and micro level fairness on happiness, our objective is to explore potential causal relationships between these variables. In addition to estimating multiple linear regression models, we therefore supplemented the analysis with a GPS weighting approach (Hu and Mustillo 2016). Traditional propensity score methods are designed for binary treatments, whereas the GPS method is more suitable in this context because the key variables—combinations of fairness perceptions—are categorical with multiple values rather than binary ones.
Assuming a normal distribution, we first used a set of observable confounding variables to estimate each individual’s predicted values for the combinations of fairness perceptions, thereby obtaining the corresponding expected value (m) and standard deviation (s). The confounding variables included all previously specified control variables. Based on the normal distribution, we then calculated the probability (p) of a specific observed value (x) for a given fairness combination, using the formula:
The GPS method applies 1/p as a weight to adjust observed cases, thereby balancing confounding factors across groups. If the results obtained after weighting are consistent with those derived from the multiple linear regression models, we can be more confident that the observed associations reflect causal relationships rather than spurious correlations.
However, since we can just estimate GPS and apply weighting based on observed data, this method can only help us balance observable confounding variables, while remaining unable to address confounding factors that are not directly observed. In this sense, the results of the GPS method only bring us closer to identifying causal relationships but cannot fully overcome potential selection bias.
Main findings
The correlation between
two types of fairness perceptions
and two types of
distributive justice principles
Before analyzing the correlation between the perception of macro and micro fairness in income distribution and the recognition of two types of distributive justice principles, we briefly examine whether there is a distinction between the two types of fairness perceptions.
Table 2 reports the contingency table for the perception of macro fairness and the perception of micro fairness. Table 2 shows that there appears to be a correlation between an individual's perception of macro fairness and perception of micro fairness, but it is actually not the case. From the horizontal percentages on the left side of the table, we can see that while 56.1% of those who perceive micro unfairness also perceive macro unfairness, 18.5% still perceive macro fairness. Among those who perceive micro fairness, 25.7% feel a macro unfairness. Similarly, the vertical percentages on the right side of Table 2 reveal that a certain proportion of people who perceive macro fairness/unfairness have inconsistent perceptions at the micro level.
Table 3 reports the correlation between two types of income distribution fairness and the recognition of two types of distributive justice principles. Figure 1 presents the key information extracted from this analysis.
Figure 1 shows that the recognition of the effort rule and the recognition of the ability rule are both significantly correlated with the perception of micro fairness. These findings support hypotheses 1a and 1b, indicating that the perception of micro fairness is based on the recognition of micro justice principles. In contrast, there is no significant correlation between the recognition of the social welfare maximization principle and the perception of micro fairness. The correlation between the recognition of the egalitarian principle and the perception of micro fairness is even strongly and significantly negative, which supports hypothesis 6a. These findings suggest that the perception of micro fairness is not based on the recognition of the macro justice principle of social welfare maximization but is primarily formed based on the recognition of micro justice principles. Moreover, the perception of micro fairness is incompatible with the recognition of the egalitarian principle.
Unlike the perception of micro fairness, the perception of macro fairness shows no significant correlation with the recognition of the effort rule and the ability rule of micro justice, while it is significantly correlated with the recognition of the macro justice principle of minimizing income disparities, with statistical significance. The statistical results support hypothesis 3. These findings indicate that the perception of macro fairness is unlikely to be based on the recognition of micro justice principles, but is instead formed based on the recognition of macro justice principles. Moreover, although the effect of the recognition of the egalitarian principle on the perception of macro fairness is not statistically significant, its direction is consistent with hypothesis 6b, thereby partially supporting hypothesis 6b. This also implies that the perception of macro fairness to some extent rejects the egalitarian principle, and is further unlikely to be based on the recognition of the egalitarian principle.
Based on these findings, we suggest that the perception of macro fairness and the perception of micro fairness are indeed two different types of social fairness perceptions. Similarly, the recognition of macro distributive justice principles and micro distributive justice principles that form these two types of fairness perceptions, are also two different types of recognition of justice principals. Thus, each type of fairness perception corresponds to a different recognition of distributive justice principles.
The effect of
different combinations of
fairness perceptions
on happiness
The classification of the perception of macro fairness and the perception of micro fairness can generate different combinations of fairness perceptions, and these combinations have significantly different effects on happiness. Figure 2 illustrates these differences. We find that, first, given a certain level of the perception of micro fairness, the stronger a society member's perception of macro fairness, the higher their level of happiness. Next, given a certain level of the perception of macro fairness, the stronger a society member's perception of micro fairness, the higher their level of happiness. Further, when both fairness at the micro and macro levels are perceived as unfair, levels of happiness are at their lowest. Conversely, when both are perceived as fair, levels of happiness are at their highest. Clearly, the effects of these two types of fairness perceptions on happiness are additive. These findings are consistent with hypotheses 2, 4, and 5, providing preliminary support for these respective hypotheses.
To eliminate spurious correlations, we further used a linear regression model to fit the data and introduced a set of control variables to examine the effects of the two types of fairness perceptions on happiness under these conditions. The statistical results of the model are presented in Table 4.
For the sake of exposition, we have displayed the key information from Model 4 of Table 4 in Fig. 3. The analysis results are entirely consistent with those without controlling for other variables. Both the perception of macro fairness and the perception of micro fairness have statistically significant effects on enhancing happiness. The additivity of the effects of these two fairness perceptions on enhancing happiness is further supported. In the graph shown in Fig. 3, which depicts the relationship between different combinations of fairness perceptions and happiness, the additive effect is quite evident. In all situations of the values of the perception of macro fairness and the perception of micro fairness, the level of happiness is lowest when both are perceived as unfair, and highest when both are perceived as fair. These findings further support hypotheses 2, 4 and 5.
To further test hypotheses 2, 4 and 5, we fitted a linear regression model weighted by GPS; the results are presented in Model 5 in Table 4. We can observe that the analysis results after weighting by GPS show no significant difference from those of the linear regression model. These results further strengthen our confidence in the causal relationship between the perception of macro fairness and the perception of micro fairness, with happiness. Importantly, as mentioned earlier, the GPS weighting balances the observable confounding factors in the data as much as is feasible.
Conclusion and discussion
This paper seeks to integrate the concept of common prosperity with theories of distributive justice and happiness. This endeavor not only connects contemporary Chinese discourse with global academic debates on social fairness, thereby situating the concept of common prosperity within a broader and more coherent theoretical framework of distributive justice, but also infuses research on fairness with renewed contemporary relevance.
Our findings suggest that common prosperity embodies a synthesis of micro and macro level principles of distributive justice. At the micro level, it affirms a merit-based logic of distribution, wherein one’s efforts, contributions and abilities constitute legitimate bases for the allocation of income and other social resources. This logic provides moral justification for one to receive deserved rewards in accordance with micro level distributive justice, while simultaneously serving as an incentive mechanism that sustains developmental efficiency. At the macro level, common prosperity reflects distributive justice principles aimed at maximizing overall social welfare by maintaining income disparities within a reasonable range and ensuring equitable access to essential public goods.
This said, common prosperity is not merely a concept of material affluence; its ultimate aim is to enable people to lead happier and more fulfilling lives. Accordingly, discussions of common prosperity, which integrates both macro and micro level principles of justice, naturally extend to the relationship between fairness, justice and happiness. We argue that adherence to justice principles and the pursuit of balance between efficiency and fairness are more likely to enable people to attain the rewards they (perceive to) deserve under microjustice principles, thereby enhancing their SWB. At the same time, this balance strengthens individual perceptions of effective social functioning and reduces felt uncertainties in life, further contributing to greater happiness.
Moreover, because the mechanisms through which macro and micro level fairness influencing happiness differ fundamentally, with micro fairness centering on the fulfilment of deserved expectations, and macro fairness pertaining to perceptions of effective societal functioning and the mitigation of uncertainty, their effects are additive. In other words, those who perceive fairness at both macro and micro levels experience the highest levels of happiness, while those perceiving unfairness in both domains report the lowest.
Using linear regression models to analyze data from the CGSS2010, this study finds that perceptions of micro level fairness are significantly correlated with the recognition of microjustice principles, but are unrelated to recognition of the principle of minimizing income disparities. Conversely, perceptions of macro level fairness are significantly associated with the recognition of the principle of minimizing income disparities, but shows no significant relationship with the recognition of microjustice principles. Both macro and micro level fairness perceptions, then, are negatively associated with endorsement of egalitarian principles.
Moreover, perceptions of macro and micro level fairness independently enhance happiness, and their effects are additive. Results from both the linear regression models and the more stringent GPS–weighted linear regression models, consistently demonstrate that stronger perceptions of macro level fairness are associated with higher levels of happiness. The same holds true for perceptions of micro level fairness. Individuals reporting low scores on both types of fairness exhibit the lowest levels of happiness, whereas those reporting high scores on both dimensions experience the highest levels of happiness. These empirical findings provide robust support for the hypotheses derived from the theoretical framework presented in this article.
Our research findings and conclusions have several policy implications. First, the principles of micro and macro distributive justice should be respected to avoid a situation where people are wealthy but not happy. In the public's view, these principles are widely recognized and serve as a legitimate basis for the distribution structure (in society). Therefore, in constructing an institutionalized distribution system, both types of distributive justice principles must be fully acknowledged. Only in this way can members of society enjoy an increasingly prosperous and happy life. Otherwise stated, greater wealth does not necessarily lead to greater happiness or social stability.
Second, interpreting common prosperity through a populist lens that falls into the discourse trap of “lying flat (quiet quitting)” and over-relies on welfare provisions, should be avoided. Neither the micro level distributive justice principle of desert, which is compatible with the market economy, nor the macro distributive justice principle of maximizing overall social welfare is congruent with egalitarianism. Although the public generally has a consensus on the justice principle of maximizing overall social welfare, they do not use equal distribution as the standard for overall social fairness. The public's understanding of common prosperity is not an egalitarian redistribution from the rich to the poor. Therefore, macro fairness is mainly realized through basic, universal and bottom-line social welfare distribution. Government officials and the media should avoid egalitarian interpretations of common prosperity.
Finally, government officials and the media should focus on guiding public attitudes with a concept of common prosperity that aligns with principles of micro and macro distributive justice and that balances efficiency and fairness. They should encourage the public to ground their perception of fairness and happiness on distributive justice principles rooted in practical legitimacy. While an emphasis on efficiency or maximizing overall social welfare may enhance the well-being of certain individuals, such imbalance is not optimal at the societal level. Only a concept of common prosperity that respects the micro and macro principles of distributive justice and reconciles efficiency with fairness can maximize the happiness of the broader public.
Due to data limitations, this study was unable to examine the perceptions of other principles related to macro and micro justice, such as the perception of the "distribution according to needs" principle within the perception of micro fairness. Similarly, because of data constraints, most variables we used are subjective, and future related research topics could employ more objective measurement indicators for analysis. In addition, although this study used the GPS weighting method to balance the potential effects of confounding variables, the correlation between the perception of fairness and happiness involves the interaction between subjective variables. Therefore, future studies need more detailed research designs to confirm causal relationships and the mechanisms between them.
This study ultimately explores the theoretical implications of the concept of common prosperity from the perspective of micro and macro fairness theory to empirically reveal the correlations amongst perceptions of macro and micro justice principles, the perceptions of macro and micro fairness, and happiness. These explorations and findings intend to lay a foundation for further research and clarification concerning the theoretical implications of the concept (of common prosperity), and call for further developing valid operationalized measurement indicators for this concept.
免费阅读并下载全文
引用本文
Liu, X., Hu, A. Macro and micro fairness, common prosperity and subjective well-being: an empirical analysis based on the 2010 CGSS. J. Chin. Sociol. 13, 6 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-026-00256-4
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40711-026-00256-4
文章仅为作者观点，不代表本刊立场
更多相关文章
以上就是本期JCS推文的内容啦！
定期查收讲座、征文信息/趣文推荐/热点追踪/主题漫谈
学术路上
JCS陪你一起成长！
关于JCS
《中国社会学学刊》(The Journal of Chinese Sociology)于2014年10月由中国社会科学院社会学研究所创办。作为中国大陆第一本英文社会学学术期刊，JCS致力于为中国社会学者与国外同行的学术交流和合作打造国际一流的学术平台。JCS由全球最大科技期刊出版集团施普林格·自然(Springer Nature)出版发行，由国内外顶尖社会学家组成强大编委会队伍，采用双向匿名评审方式和“开放获取”(open access)出版模式。JCS已于2021年5月被ESCI收录。2022年，JCS的CiteScore分值为2.0（Q2），在社科类别的262种期刊中排名第94位，位列同类期刊前36%。2023年，JCS在科睿唯安发布的2023年度《期刊引证报告》（JCR）中首次获得影响因子并达到1.5（Q3）。2025年JCS最新影响因子1.3，位列社会学领域期刊全球前53%（Q3）。
欢迎向《中国社会学学刊》投稿！
Please consider submitting to The Journal of Chinese Sociology!
官方网站：
https://journalofchinesesociology.springeropen.com
热门跟贴