Governance and management
Quality can be enhanced by better management practices, transparency in the use of resources, and accountability mechanisms to communities and other stakeholders. Mechanisms for promoting ownership and accountability through participatory planning deserve increased attention. Issues of governance go beyond ensuring better management of the public sector. They include a concern for increasing ownership by different stakeholders at different levels.

One strand of the research focuses on centralization/decentralization to answer questions about what responsibilities within education systems (such as recruitment of teachers, control of budgets, design of curricula) are most appropriately located at national, provincial, district and/or school levels in countries of different sizes and cultures. The research also takes into consideration the distribution of responsibilities within particular levels, e.g. at the national level between national ministries of basic education, higher education, finance, planning, etc.

A second strand focuses on management of skills development and training. Expansion of opportunities for young people who have completed basic education does not imply exclusive attention to traditional models of formal education. Attention is given to alternative models and to non-formal modes which can serve out-of-school youths. Learners in modes of post-basic education pay attention to the demands of the labour market. This requires examination of the types of skills offered by different modes of training for both in-school and out-of-school youth.

Systems of higher education also require attention. The issues of governance include mechanisms for governments to achieve appropriate accountability and coherence even in societies which grant high degrees of autonomy to higher education systems. Planning and management are also needed within institutions of higher education, some of which are very large and operate on multiple campuses. The forces of globalization and the availability of new technologies are having a particularly marked impact on this sector.

Finally, within all education systems, teachers are the most important resource and typically consume over 80 per cent of recurrent budgets. New tools are available for planning teacher demand and supply, but these tools must be used within political and social contexts that vary in different settings. The research focuses on the appointment and deployment of teachers, including headteachers, at the levels of primary and secondary education.

-------------------------------------------------
Governance & Management
This Guide is designed to help you ensure your organisation establishes effective practices and policies to develop and maintain good governance.
While governance can be defined simply as: setting and monitoring the direction of an organisation; ensuring it remains financially sound; and ensuring legal compliance, in practice it is never that simple. Good governance depends on developing good working relationships with those who do the day-to-day work of the organisation.
Resources collected in this toolkit are designed to help you access quality and up-to-date information to assist in building and maintaining these relationships. Contents include a board orientation checklist, links to sample policies, and alternative structures and models.

Governance and Management Articles
Updates to this material are, in part, either adapted or excerpted from Software Security Engineering: A Guide for Project Managers [Allen 2008].
Governance and management of security are most effective when they are systemic, woven into the culture and fabric of organizational behaviors and actions. In this regard, culture is defined as the predominating shared attitudes, values, goals, behaviors, and practices that characterize the functioning of a group or organization. Culture thereby creates and sustains connections among principles, policies, processes, products, people, and performance. Effective security should be thought of as an attribute or characteristic of an organization or a project. It becomes evident when everyone proactively carries out their roles and responsibilities, creating a culture of security that displaces ignorance and apathy. One manifestation of this is that everyone proactively considers the attacker perspective throughout the software development life cycle and how the software can fail when under intentional attack or unintentional actions of users or developers.
This means that security must come off the technical sidelines as activities and responsibilities solely relegated to software development and IT departments. Today, boards of directors, senior executives, and managers all must work to establish and reinforce a relentless drive toward effective enterprise, information, system, and software security. If the responsibility for these is assigned to roles that lack the authority, accountability, and resources to implement and enforce them, the desired level of security will not be articulated, achieved, or sustained. Contrary to the popular belief that security is a technical issue, even the best efforts to buy secure software and build security into developed software and operational systems encounter "considerable resistance because the problem is mostly organizational and cultural, not technical" [Steven 2006]. Software and information security are about spending money, with the measure of success being that nothing bad happens. As time goes on, this can become a tough sell to business leaders as the “we haven't been attacked lately so we can cut back on spending” mentality sets in.
Project managers need to elevate software security from a standalone technical concern to an enterprise issue when both developing and acquiring software. Because security is now a business problem, the organization must activate, coordinate, deploy, and direct many of its core resources and competencies to manage security risks in concert with the entity’s strategic goals, operational criteria, compliance requirements, and technical system architecture. Those responsible for ensuring secure software should have the responsibility and authority to stop the release of new software into production if security requirements are not met. To sustain enterprise security, the organization must move toward a security management process that is strategic, systematic, and repeatable, with efficient use of resources and effective, consistent achievement of goals [Caralli 2004b].
The objective of this content area is to help software developers and their managers, and security professionals and their managers: (1) more effectively engage their leaders and executives in security governance and management by understanding how to place information and software security in a business context and (2) better understand how to enhance current management practices to produce more secure software. Armed with this material, managers and developers can build attentive, security-conscious leaders who are in a better position to make well-informed security investment decisions. With this support, they can then take actionable steps to implement effective security governance and management practices across the software and system development life cycle.

Financial Management means the efficient and effective management of money (funds) in such a manner as to accomplish the objectives of the organization. It includes how to rise the capital, how to allocate it i.e. capital budgeting. Not only about long term budgeting but also how to allocate the short term resources like current assets. It also deals with the dividend policies of the share holders.
The money available to a business for spending in the form of cash, liquid securities and credit lines. Before going into business, an entrepreneur needs to secure sufficient financial resources in order to be able to operate efficiently and sufficiently well to promote success.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/financial-resources.html#ixzz2lvsHhOOO
The planning, directing, monitoring, organizing, and controlling of the monetary resources of an organization.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/financial-management.html#ixzz2lvsYBimL

John Rawls is perhaps the most significant intellectual in philosophical ethics to have written in the past hundred years. It is nearly impossible to address ethics in contemporary philosophy without saying something about John Rawls. Central to his theory of justice are the concepts of fairness and equality from behind what he terms a "veil of ignorance".

Rawls's veil of ignorance is a component of the way people can construct society. He refers to an "original position" in which a person is attempting to determine a fair arrangement for society without any preconceived notions or prejudices.
In this original position, people are behind what Rawls calls a "Veil of Ignorance" and do not know where they will fall in the social hierarchy in terms of race, class, sex, disability, and other relevant factors. Rawls is a Kantian liberal in that he believes that principles of justice should be universalizable, and so the only way to ensure that people will select fair principles of justice is to be certain that they do not know how the principles they select might affect them as individuals. A person behind the "veil of ignorance" does not know which side of a social contract he or she will be on, does not know his or her race, class, sex, or status in society. A person who does not know what privileges he or she will be born with (or without ) is, in Rawls' view, more likely to construct a society that does not arbitrarily assign privilege based on characteristics that should have no bearing on what people get. Rawls believes that a society cannot be just without fairness and equality and believes this veil of ignorance both reveals the biases of current society and can help to prevent biases in establishing future social arrangements.

Rawls is often thought of as a liberal philosopher given his position emphasizing fairness regardless of social status. His philosophy can be used to justify programs like affirmative action but has also been used by the more politically conservative to argue that the American political system allows each person a fair chance and that most people would choose the American political system from behind a veil of ignorance.
Source: John Rawls-A Theory of Justice

Rawls wants to use reasoning which all humans have to arrive at the principle of the GOOD. He is similar to Kant in this regard. He wants to avoid the problems with Kant's theory and he wants to avoid providing any justification for morally outrageous actions which could be justified on utilitarian principles. He wants to avoid the disadvantages of those approaches. His approach places humans in a position wherein they view the moral dilemma or problem without knowing who they are in the situation. What would rational beings decide was best in situations where not all the humans involved are equal in physical conditions , social or economic circumstance? Rawls believes that humans would resolve the conflict or problem in such a way that whoever was worst off would be not as bad off as they otherwise might be because the person making the decision does not know whether they are gong to be in the position of the worst off.
The main moral motivation for the Difference Principle is similar to that for strict equality: equal respect for persons. Indeed the Difference Principle materially collapses to a form of strict equality under empirical conditions where differences in income have no effect on the work incentive of people. The overwhelming opinion though is that in the foreseeable future the possibility of earning greater income will bring forth greater productive effort. This will increase the total wealth of the economy and, under the Difference Principle, the wealth of the least advantaged. Opinion divides on the size of the inequalities that would, as a matter of empirical fact, be allowed by the Difference Principle, and on how much better off the least advantaged would be under the Difference Principle than under a strict equality principle. Rawls’ principle however gives fairly clear guidance on what type of arguments will count as justifications for inequality. Rawls is not opposed to the principle of strict equality per se, his concern is about the absolute position of the least advantaged group rather than their relative position. If a system of strict equality maximizes the absolute position of the least advantaged in society, then the Difference Principle advocates strict equality. If it is possible to raise the position of the least advantaged further by inequality of income and wealth, then the Difference Principle prescribes inequality up to that point where the absolute position of the least advantaged can no longer be raised.

******************************

There is no one single main point of Rawl's A Theory of Justice, but one of its main points is to try to move from equality to justice (hence justice as fairness) by measured steps that rational persons would be able to embrace. In this regard it may be the most plausible theory of justice that doesn't depend on emotion, upbringing, self-serving prejudice, class consciousness, and so on.

1) All theories of human action, social organization, morality rest on idealized or schematic persons and not real individuals. They are not fully scientific in the contemporary sense but they are as close as you can get in morally relevant contexts. Hence Rawls deals with representative persons and invests them with several qualities - rationality, and reasonable self interest being two salient features. If that shoe can't fit the reader then there would be no reason to read further as nothing else will be entirely agreeable thereafter.

2) Rawls does not advocate in any form the equal distribution of resources or their blind redistribution to the disadvantaged. Everyone who has thought the matter through knows that these are socially wasteful distributions. The idea behind Rawls' difference principle is to arrange before-hand (behind a veil of ignorance) for a system of distribution of resources which will differentially reward the socially useful so long as it will always also be to the advantage of the least well off. So. e.g. if we determine that a sanitation engineer is necessary to a well ordered society because his/her activities will be to everyone's advantage we have reasonable grounds to award him/her a disproportionate portion of the available pool of social wealth, and then so on down the line of socially useful pursuits (we want to reward all socially useful activities, discourage the opposite and improve the lot of those who may contribute little or even nothing). This we do theoretically beforehand so we can in the blind determine what a 'just' distribution would be like. Then we are in position to criticize actual distributions that substantially vary from the distribution we selected as 'unjust'. - - -Stefan Baumrin, CUNY (by permission)
EXAMPLE of Possible Application of Rawls:

Person P is attempting to reach a conclusion as to whether or not to do action A or which action (B,C or D) would be the morally correct thing to do. Well, for Rawls a person would want to consider whether actions A B C D would support or violate the principle of the moral GOOD which for Rawls is the maxi-min principle:

Maximize the liberty and freedoms of all involved. Do not restrict or deny the freedom and choice of anyone involved in the situation.

Minimize the harms or the plight of the least well off in the situation or minimize the differences in the welfare of the least well off as compared to those who are most well off. Do not make matters worse for those already most disadvantaged in the situation.

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -

PROBLEMS:

Because there has been such extensive discussion of the Difference Principle in the last 30 years, there have been numerous criticisms of it from the perspective of all five other theories of distributive justice. Briefly, the main criticisms are as follows.

1. Advocates of strict equality argue that inequalities permitted by the Difference Principle are unacceptable even if they do benefit the least advantaged. The problem for these advocates is to explain in a satisfactory way why the relative position of the least advantaged is more important than their absolute position, and hence why society should be prevented from materially benefiting the least advantaged when this is possible. The most common explanation appeals to solidarity : that being materially equal is an important expression of the equality of persons. Another common explanation appeals to the power some may have over others, if they are better off materially. Rawls’ response to this latter criticism appeals to the priority of his first principle: The inequalities consistent with the Difference Principle are only permitted so long as they do not result in unequal liberty. So, for instance, power differentials resulting from unequal income are not permitted if they violate the first principle of equal liberty, even if they increase the material position of the least advantaged group.

2. The Utilitarian objection to the Difference Principle is that it does not maximize utility. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls uses Utilitarianism as the main theory for comparison with his own, and hence he responds at length to this Utilitarian objection and argues for his own theory in preference to Utilitarianism (some of these arguments are outlined in the section on Welfare-Based Principles at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Welfare

3. Libertarians object that the Difference Principle involves unacceptable infringements on liberty. For instance, the Difference Principle may require redistributive taxation to the poor, and Libertarians commonly object that such taxation involves the immoral taking of just holdings. (see Libertarian Principles at

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Libertarian

4. The Difference Principle is also criticized as a primary distributive principle on the grounds that it mostly ignores claims that people deserve certain economic benefits in light of their actions. Advocates of Desert-Based Principles argue that some may deserve a higher level of material goods because of their hard work or contributions even if their unequal rewards do not also function to improve the position of the least advantaged. They also argue that the Difference Principle ignores the explanations of how people come to be in the more or less advantaged groups, when such explanations are relevant to the fairness of these positions.

5. The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance may exclude some morally relevant information. the theory excludes in order to promote rationality and is biased in favor of rationality.

6. Some criticize it for being similar to Utilitarianism in as much as these two principles could permit or demand inequalities and suffering in order to benefit the least well off.

7. Like Desert theorists, advocates of Resource-Based Principles criticize the Difference Principle on the basis that it is not ‘ambition-sensitive’ enough, i.e. it is not sensitive to the consequences of people’s choices. They also argue that it is not adequately ‘endowment-sensitive’: it does not compensate people for natural inequalities (like handicaps or ill-health) over which people have no control.

8. There is also the difficulty in applying the theory to practice. It is difficult if not impossible for people to place themselves under the Veil of Ignorance in the Original Position in order to formulate what conduct would be required of them by the MAXI MIN Principle.

9. Some question whether or not people are rational enough to assume the veil of ignorance and operate under the two principles.

10. The theory was developed more to handle problems within society and there are difficulties in applying the principles to individual decision-making involving specific others.

Financial Management & Reporting Publications

AICPA’s members in Business and Industry serve a critical role in moving their organizations forward by following best practices in financial management and reporting. AICPA is committed to providing the tools and resources our members need to function effectively in this role. Our financial management and reporting publications bring our members the expertise and insight of thought leaders in the profession on topics such as accounting issues and risks, audit committee best practices, organizational risk management, IFRS impacts on reporting, and much more.

-------------------------------------------------
Financial management and reporting
The role of the board is to identify the school’s education priorities, to develop a budget that addresses these priorities, and to monitor and report on this expenditure.
On this page * Annual Financial Reporting * Support for Schools
Collectively, all members of a school board are accountable for the funding and other resources allocated to the board.
A regular financial management report to the board will provide: * income and expenditure accrued for the current year to date (especially important for mid-term reports) * progress on any planned or underway capital expenditure (ie property, ICT purchases etc) * a financial forecast to the end of the year * banking staffing usage year to date and planned usage for the remainder of the year.
The following questions will assist your board to ensure that the school finances are being managed effectively: * What are the school’s priorities for this year? * Does the board know that all income and expenditure has been properly accrued for the report (especially important for mid term reports)? * Are capital expenditure purchases reported separately from the regular financial reports? * Does the financial report provide a forecast for the end of year? Is the school on track to meet the budget? * If the forecast is indicating that the school is not on target to meet budget, what steps is the board taking to rectify the outcome? * Does the board know what the status of banking staffing is - under or over used? * Is the board clear on the impact of banking staffing? Does the board have a clear understanding of the cost of both teaching and non-teaching staff that is being expensed to the operations grant?
Annual Financial Reporting
Each year every school must produce an Annual Report. The annual report has to be sent to the school’s auditors by 31 March and a copy of the audited report sent to the Ministry by 31 May each year. The legal requirements for the annual report are contained in the Education Act 1989 and the Crown Entities Act 2004.

Guidance on how to prepare your school's annual report and for assistance with financial management and reporting is available on the Ministry of Education's School Finances Homepage and in the Financial Information for Schools Handbook.
Support for schools
The Ministry has a monitoring and advisory role. Each school's audited financial statements are reviewed, and we may ask for explanations if there is poor liquidity or financial performance, or net assets have reduced.

The Ministry has regional financial advisors who are experienced in schools' financial matters and can provide advice and support.
"The Department knows its increase in funding, and new approach to aiding developing countries, brings challenges. This report shows considerable progress is being made, but a better information environment is needed to deal with the heightened levels of assurance required in targeting future aid at higher risk locations
Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, 6 April 2011

Sound financial management will be essential at the Department for International Development as its spending increases by a third over the next four years, according to the National Audit Office.
The Department has improved its core financial management and has an ambitious programme underway to improve its focus on value for money. It has put important building blocks in place; however its financial management is not yet mature. The Department cannot yet assess important aspects of the value for money of the aid it has delivered, at an aggregated level.
The Department’s programme budget will grow by £3.3 billion from 2010-11 to 2014-15 (34 per cent in real terms). At the same time, its administration budget is going to reduce by a third. The Department will face significant financial and operational challenges, making sound financial management essential.
The Department has increased the number of finance professionals it employs, but this expertise needs to be used more effectively across the business. In addition, new financial information systems do not yet provide the data needed to support well-founded decisions and forecasts are still an area of weakness.
Having conducted a thorough review, the Department now has a high level plan allocating its resources on the basis of the results it aims to achieve. Along with actions to strengthen measurement of aid projects, this has the potential to help strengthen the focus on aid results and value for money. But key risks need to be managed and the Department should now develop a coherent, single strategy for doing so.
With greater spending in higher risk locations and more fragile states, the Department must do more to assure itself that it minimises fraud and corruption risks. Although the level of reported fraud is low, it is likely to be under-reported. The NAO has found that the investigation of fraud is reactive and the Department does not attempt to quantify its estimated likely fraud losses.
-------------------------------------------------
Comparison of management accounting and financial accounting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The structure of accounting as documented by the International Federation of Accountants
The differences between management accounting and financial accounting include:[1] 1. Management accounting provides information to people within an organization while financial accounting is mainly for those outside it, such as shareholders 2. Financial accounting is required by law while management accounting is not. Specific standards and formats may be required for statutory accounts such as in the I.A.S International Accounting Standard within Europe. 3. Financial accounting covers the entire organization while management accounting may be concerned with particular products or cost centres.
Managerial accounting is used primarily by those within a company or organization. Reports can be generated for any period of time such as daily, weekly or monthly. Reports are considered to be "future looking" and have forecasting value to those within the company.
Financial accounting is used primarily by those outside of a company or organization. Financial reports are usually created for a set period of time, such as a fiscal year or period. Financial reports are historically factual and have predictive value to those who wish to make financial decisions or investments in a company. Management Accounting is the branch of Accounting that deals primarily with confidential financial reports for the exclusive use of top management within an organization. These reports are prepared utilizing scientific and statistical methods to arrive at certain monetary values which are then used for decision making. Such reports may include: * Sales Forecasting reports * Budget analysis and comparative analysis * Feasibility studies * Merger and consolidation reports
Financial Accounting, on the other hand, concentrates on the production of financial reports, including the basic reporting requirements of profitability, liquidity, solvency and stability. Reports of this nature can be accessed by internal and external users such as the shareholders, the banks and the creditors.
Contents
[hide] * 1 Regulation and standardization * 2 Time Period * 3 Other differences * 4 References
-------------------------------------------------
Regulation and standardization[edit]
While financial accountants follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles set by professional bodies in each country or International Financial Reporting Standards, managerial accountants make use of procedures and processes that are not regulated by a standard-setting bodies.
Multinational companies prefer to employ managerial accountants who have a widely recognised certification such as CGMA, Chartered Global Management Accountant certified by the AICPA and CIMA, ACMA certified by the Institute of Cost Accountants of India [1], Chartered Management Accountant certified by the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, or CMA, Certified Management Accountant certified by the Institute of Management Accountants.
-------------------------------------------------
Time Period[edit]
Managerial Accounting provides top management with reports that are future-oriented, while Financial Accounting provides reports based on historical information. There is no time span for producing managerial accounting statements but financial accounting statements are generally required to be produced for the period of 12 previous months.
-------------------------------------------------
Other differences[edit] * There is no legal requirement for an organization to use management accounting, but publicly traded firms (limited companies or whose shares are bought and sold on an open market) must, by law, prepare financial account statements. * In management accounting systems there is no requirement for an independent external review but financial accounting annual statements must be audited by an independent CPA firm. * In management accounting systems, management may be concerned about how reports will affect employees behavior whereas financial management concerns are about the adequacy of disclosure in financial statements.

CONCLUSION :

School governance is concerned with more than where decisions are made. It is concerned with the package of arrangements that constitute the framework within which teaching and learning occurs. Elements of that framework include the way the curriculum is organised, financial management, personnel management and resource allocation. In an early part of these paper it was noted that decentralisation could occur with respect to any or all of these elements.
Research that has linked decentralisation by itself to student learning outcomes has not suggested large effects. However, decentralisation is often implemented as part of a package of changes.
Where this package forms part of an integrated governance structure in which the central authority has responsibility for defining curriculum, monitoring quality and intervening as necessary the results are more promising.

VI. Conclusion Through SBM, schools have more autonomy and assume greater responsibility to create an environment that is conducive to continuous school improvement and to put in place a self-evaluation mechanism to assure the quality of learning and teaching. The ultimate aim of
SBM is to improve the standards of teaching and students’ learning outcomes through the concerted efforts of the key stakeholders, the leadership and commitment of frontline educators and the support of the Government.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND MANAGEMENT

Conclusions and recommendations
1. Departments have been successful in improving their resource management, but a lack of financial management skills amongst non-finance staff is a barrier to further progress. The Professional Skills for Government Framework includes a standard covering financial management core skills. Departments should require senior and middle managers to demonstrate in their annual appraisals how they meet the standard, and, where enhancement of skills is needed, provide access to appropriate training.
2. The quality, timeliness and completeness of resource information provided to departmental boards needs to improve in order that boards can make better informed decisions. More than half of departments still report financial and operational performance information to the board separately. Departments should produce integrated information and present it with 10 working days of the month end, as recommended by HM Treasury, and in a format which enables decision makers to understand how much is being spent on which programmes and with what effect.
3. Only 41% of departments’ policy proposals always included a full financial appraisal and only 20% based policy decisions on a thorough assessment of their financial implications. In order to strengthen departments’ focus on value for money, each policy proposal submitted to Ministers and board members should include a full assessment of its financial implications.
4. Between 2002–03 and 2006–07, total underspending in excess of 5% of budgets by all departments amounted to £1.8 billion. Underspending can be consistent with good financial management where it reflects a decision to carry forward efficiency savings. Consistent underspending can, however, reflect unnecessary levels of contingency preventing resources from being used on higher priority programmes.
Whenever practicable, departmental boards should validate resource requirements by linking them to planned levels of activity and intended outputs.
5. Since our last Report departments have not significantly improved the reliability of their forecasting and in-year monitoring of expenditure. Some departments continue to produce forecasts that vary significantly from the actual expenditure incurred only a few months later. Where this is a consistent occurrence, the underlying causes need to be identified and an improvement plan developed, progress against which should be regularly reviewed by the departmental board.
6. The flexibility to carry forward unspent funds from one year to another may no longer incentivise departments to manage their budgets in a way that represents optimum value for money. The Treasury has exercised greater control over the amounts departments can use from unspent balances brought forward from previous years. Some departments consider that an unintended consequence of this is that there are now insufficient incentives to avoid wasteful spending of excess funds towards the end of the financial year. HM Treasury needs to communicate 6 with departments earlier and more clearly about how much spending from previous years departments can use.
7. 19% of departments, collectively managing assets of £23 billion, rated themselves as weak at managing their balance sheet. Boards should review their departmental balance sheet at least quarterly and seek assurance as to how cost effectively significant assets, such as land, building and equipment, are being utilised.
8. Non-executive directors have helped improve standards of financial management, but require more support from departments. The independent challenge which non-executive directors can provide depends on them having a clearly defined role and being well supported by departments so that they have sufficiently detailed knowledge of their operations. HM Treasury should assess how well departments have developed clearly defined roles for the non-executive directors on their boards, and consider how the Corporate Governance Code can be refreshed to more effectively support non-executive directors to challenge and support departmental activity.
9. The full potential to improve value for money will only be realised if departments have a better understanding of the costs of delivering their key services.
Collectively, departments must secure £30 billion of value for money savings by
2011. If this target is to be achieved, departments will need to have much more reliable information on the unit costs of key outputs to gauge whether costs are reasonable and commensurate with the quality of service delivered.

Conclusion of Justice and Fairs
John Rawls is perhaps the most significant intellectual in philosophical ethics to have written in the past hundred years. It is nearly impossible to address ethics in contemporary philosophy without saying something about John Rawls. Central to his theory of justice are the concepts of fairness and equality from behind what he terms a "veil of ignorance".
Rawls's veil of ignorance is a component of the way people can construct society. He refers to an "original position" in which a person is attempting to determine a fair arrangement for society without any preconceived notions or prejudices.
In this original position, people are behind what Rawls calls a "Veil of Ignorance" and do not know where they will fall in the social hierarchy in terms of race, class, sex, disability, and other relevant factors. Rawls is a Kantian liberal in that he believes that principles of justice should be universalizable, and so the only way to ensure that people will select fair principles of justice is to be certain that they do not know how the principles they select might affect them as individuals. A person behind the "veil of ignorance" does not know which side of a social contract he or she will be on, does not know his or her race, class, sex, or status in society. A person who does not know what privileges he or she will be born with (or without ) is, in Rawls' view, more likely to construct a society that does not arbitrarily assign privilege based on characteristics that should have no bearing on what people get. Rawls believes that a society cannot be just without fairness and equality and believes this veil of ignorance both reveals the biases of current society and can help to prevent biases in establishing future social arrangements.
Rawls is often thought of as a liberal philosopher given his position emphasizing fairness regardless of social status. His philosophy can be used to justify programs like affirmative action but has also been used by the more politically conservative to argue that the American political system allows each person a fair chance and that most people would choose the American political system from behind a veil of ignorance.
Source: John Rawls-A Theory of Justice ustice as Fairness: A Restatement (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 2001) is a work of political philosophy by John Rawls, a revision of his 1971 classic A Theory of Justice. This shorter summary of the main arguments of Rawls' political philosophy was edited by Erin Kelly. Prior to publication, many versions were circulated in typescript and much of the material was delivered by Rawls in lectures when he taught courses covering his own work at Harvard University.

Rawls is responding to criticism as well as adding further thought to his earlier A Theory of Justice. It was written shortly before his death in 2002. In part I, he discusses several fundamental ideas, all of which are familiar to a reader of his earlier book as well as Political Liberalism (1995): a well-ordered society; the basic structure of society; the original position; free and equal persons; public justification; reflective equilibrium; and overlapping consensus. In part II, he moves on to his principles of justice, revising them from his earlier edition, which now read (p. 42):
(a) Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and
(b) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
In part III, Rawls expands on his argument for the two principles of the Original position. Here he brings in a new concept, that of Public reason, an idea that is not well discussed in Theory of Justice.
Rawls holds that the first three "[violate] the two principles of justice in at least one way" (p. 137), thus leaving only (4) property-owning democracy and (5) liberal socialism as the "ideal descriptions" that include "arrangements designed to satisfy the two principles of justice" (p. 138). In part V he explains why political liberalism is not only possible, but why it is not utopian thinking to believe that such a society is possible.
Looking primarily at the twentieth century United States, he is certain that institutions within US society are causing injustices. The very expensive campaign system essentially rules out all but the very rich from even deciding to run for public office. The expense of healthcare restricts the best care to those who can afford it, leaving the poor to only the most basic of services.