Justice and local public goods: a comparison of universalist theories of social justice from the perspective of the provision of a local public good.

Summary Firmly rooted in the framework of theoretical public economics, this work seeks to compare different universalist theories of social justice. This comparison is made from the point of view of determining the characteristics of the supply of local public goods. A reflection on the nature of local public goods makes it possible to highlight the need to take ethical criteria into account in their management. It also appears essential to introduce the spatial characteristics of these goods into the analysis. The different theories of social justice compared are: utilitarianism, the new welfare economy, the absence of envy and the theory of John Rawls. The presentation of these theories allows two types of lessons to be learned. First, social justice is an element that contributes to maintaining social cohesion. Secondly, the criteria of justice are tools for collective decision-making. A common application grid makes it possible to determine, for each theory, the recommendations to be followed to ensure that their principle is respected. Thus, for each theory, it is possible to determine the best location, the optimal quantity of equipment to build and the distribution of financing. It is these different results that can be compared. It thus appears that the principles of horizontal and vertical equity must be the pillars of the distribution system, that Weber's and Rawls' location models are relevant tools, and that the relative position of individuals with respect to the public good must be taken into account.