The Balancing Mechanism between Efficiency and Fairness in the Process of Economic Development

Kai Zhuang

doi:10.54691/t1t2kr02

Authors

Kai Zhuang Andover High School, Andover, MA 01810, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54691/t1t2kr02

Keywords:

Economic development, efficiency, fairness, income distribution, common prosperity, balancing mechanism.

Abstract

Efficiency and fairness constitute two fundamental value objectives enduring throughout economic development. Efficiency centers on optimizing resource allocation, lifting productive capacity and unlocking momentum for economic growth, whereas fairness highlights equal development opportunities, a rational distribution structure and shared development gains. The priority accorded to each dimension shifts across distinct developmental stages. Since the launch of reform and opening-up, China has substantially boosted resource allocation efficiency and fueled rapid economic growth by leveraging market mechanisms. Nevertheless, as economic development transitions to a high-quality phase, mounting concerns have arisen over widening income gaps, regional disparities, urban-rural divides and unequal access to public services. Exclusive emphasis on efficiency risks social stratification, while one-sided pursuit of fairness may dampen developmental dynamism. Accordingly, efforts must be made to advance fairness amid development and elevate efficiency within a fair framework. Starting from the theoretical nexus between efficiency and fairness, this paper analyzes the practical manifestations and root causes of imbalances between the two in economic development and explores viable balancing mechanisms from multiple dimensions, to offer insights for advancing sustained and sound economic development.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Kahnt, T., & Tobler, P. N. (2013). Salience signals in the right temporoparietal junction facilitate value-based decisions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 863–869.

[2] Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.

[3] Jacobson, L., Koslowsky, M., & Lavidor, M. (2012). tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: A meta-analytical review. Experimental Brain Research, 216, 1–10.

[4] Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869.

[5] Mills, K. L., Lalonde, F., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N., & Blakemore, S. J. (2014). Developmental changes in the structure of the social brain in late childhood and adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 123–131.

[6] Feng, C., et al. (2021). Common brain networks underlying human social interactions: Evidence from large-scale neuroimaging meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 126, 289–303.

[7] Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E., & Knutsson, H. (2016). Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 7900–7905.

[8] Tassy, S., et al. (2012). Disrupting the right prefrontal cortex alters moral judgement. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 282–288.

[9] Bond, D., & Park, J.-C. (1991). An empirical test of Rawls’s theory of justice: A second approach, in Korea and the United States. Simulation & Gaming, 22, 443–462.

[10] Antal, A., et al. (2022). Non-invasive brain stimulation and neuroenhancement. Clinical Neurophysiology Practice, 7, 146–165.