The Injustice of the Current Global Economic Order in the Light of Thomas Pogge´s Argument from Negative Duties
| Název práce v češtině: | Nespravedlnost současného globálního ekonomického řádu ve světle argumentu Thomase Pogge z negativních povinností |
|---|---|
| Název v anglickém jazyce: | The Injustice of the Current Global Economic Order in the Light of Thomas Pogge´s Argument from Negative Duties |
| Klíčová slova: | Global Economic Injustice, Negative Duties, Global Economic Order, WTO, Subsidies, Collective Action |
| Klíčová slova anglicky: | Global Economic Injustice, Negative Duties, Global Economic Order, WTO, Subsidies, Collective Action |
| Akademický rok vypsání: | 2020/2021 |
| Typ práce: | bakalářská práce |
| Jazyk práce: | angličtina |
| Ústav: | Katedra politologie (23-KP) |
| Vedoucí / školitel: | Janusz Salamon, Ph.D. |
| Řešitel: | skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem |
| Datum přihlášení: | 27.09.2021 |
| Datum zadání: | 28.09.2021 |
| Datum a čas obhajoby: | 13.06.2022 08:00 |
| Místo konání obhajoby: | Pekařská 16, JPEK105, 105, Střední učebna, 1.patro |
| Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: | 03.05.2022 |
| Datum proběhlé obhajoby: | 13.06.2022 |
| Oponenti: | Mgr. Jakub Tesař, Ph.D. |
| Kontrola URKUND: | |
| Zásady pro vypracování |
| Topic Characteristics / Research Question(s):
Intensified globalization and the question on what obligations and responsibilities the affluent societies have towards those who suffer from poverty has extended the philosophical debate on justice to the global sphere. Looking at the facts about Global extreme poverty one must note that there exist 1 billion chronically undernourished individual human beings and 800 mil-lion lack the access to clean water. Measured by the World Bank, 3.5 billion human beings live below the poverty line living of less than 2,50 $ per day. Motivated by these alarming numbers, this thesis ties in the debate to which extent the Current Global Economic Order not only favors but fosters the status quo of extreme poverty in many parts of the world. Based on the conviction that there is a capacity to fix this challenge there is an urgent need for action to redistribute wealth allocation. Most importantly, it is necessary to define the responsibilities of the affluent societies in the context of Global Justice. In this light, this thesis dives in the controversial debate about the duties of the affluent (mostly west-ern) societies andthus examines the Argument from Negative Duties by Thomas Pogge. Con-trary to the argument of explanatory nationalism, the Argument, presented by Pogge, as-sumes, that the affluent societies violate their negative duty not to harm the global poor be-cause they preserve their economic advantages by imposing an unjust global economic order on the global poor that is to their disadvantage. This thesis examines the argument from neg-ative duties and weights it against critical counter-arguments analyzing its feasibility in the context of the current Global Economic Order. It will be analyzed whether this argument from Pogge holds and whether or not one can say that the Global Economic Order, represented by supranational institutionssuchastheWorld Bank,really harmstheglobal poor. It will beshown that there exist good reasons to focus on the current global economic when tackling the issue of global injustice and that the most important supranational institutions that are permeated with a system of treaties and conventions about trade contribute to global economic inequality and the persistence of poverty. Working hypotheses: 1. Despite widespread recognition of the misery in terms of wealth and resource distribution, poverty has never been fully eradicated. This discrepancy is induced by an unjust Global Economic Order. 2. There is an urgent need to tackle these inequalities by an adequate theory of Global Jus-tice with an emphasis on a globalist explanation and therefore rejecting the arguments of ex-planatory nationalism. 3. The Argument from Negative Duties holds the Current Economic Order responsible for vi-olating their duty not to harm the global poor. 4. The participation in the system and the shared responsibility for the design of the institu-tions implies a moral responsibility for the affluent societies. Methodology: In the first part of the thesis I intend to focus on the recent philosophical debate on the issue of global justice. In academic literature there is no doubt about the unjust distribution of wealth between the global poor and the richer few percent . But beyond this consent, in political phi-losophy, there is large disagreement on how to tackle this challenge. For this, I will compare the most influential ideas in the literature, focusing on the two contrasting approaches of glob-alism and statism. In this light I will compare and analyze the distinction between positive and negative duties and its importance for the further debate. In the second part of the thesis I intend to narrow down this debate and to link the theory of global justice with the current global challenges of severe poverty. This thesis will strongly promotethevalueof globalism and thus defend the argumentformNegative Dutiesby Thomas Pogge. In the light of “new harms” and persistent global injustice, this thesis aims to show the value of the approach by defending its main hypotheses against flawed criticism. Finally, this thesis links the Argument from Negative Duties and the current Global Injustice induced by a Global Economic Order an argues for an Institutional reform. Thereby recalling the responsibility of the affluent societies to take seriously their duties not to harm the global poor. The World Bank poverty measurement choices will be used to illustrate the critique on the Global Economic Order and the violation of Negative Duties towards the Global poor re-sulting in an imperative for Institutional reform. |
| Seznam odborné literatury |
| Brooks, J. & Matthews, A. 2015. ´Trade Dimensions of Food Security’ OECD Food,
Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, OECD Publishing Paris (77). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js65xn790nv-en. Chancel, Lucas & Piketty, Thomas. 2021.‘Global Income Inequality, 1820 – 2020: The Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality.’ HAL open science (2021). halshs-03321887. Chancel, Lucas, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman et al. 2021 ‘World Inequality Report 2022.’ World Inequality Lab: wir2022.wid.world. Charlton, Andrew H., Stiglitz Joseph E., 2005. ‘A Development-friendly Prioritisation of Do-ha Round Proposals.’ The World Economy 28 (3): 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2005.00683.x. Cohen, Joshua. 2010. ‘Philosophy, Social Science, Global Poverty.’ In Thomas Pogge and His Critics, edited by Alison M. Jaggar, 18-45. Polity Press. Dasandi, Niheer. 2014. ‘International Inequality and World Poverty: A Quantitative Structur-al Analysis.’ New Political Economy 19 (2): 201-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2013.779654. Davies, James, Rodrigo Lluberas, and Anthony Shorrocks. 2021. ‘Credit Suisse Research Institute: Global Wealth Report 2021.’ Credit Suisse. DeBoe, Gwendolen. 2020. ‘Impacts of Agricultural Policies on Productivity and Sustainabil-ity Performance in Agriculture: A Literature Review.’ OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, OECD Publishing Paris (141). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/6bc916e7-en. Fanzo, Jessica, Namukolo Covic, Achim Dobermann, Spencer Henson, Mario Herrero, Prabhu Pingali, and Steve Staal. 2020. ‘Research Vision for Food Systems in the 2020s: Defying the Status Quo.’ Global Food Security 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100397. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2021. ‘The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021.Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and Affordable Healthy Diets for All.’ Rome FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4474en. FAO, UNDP, UNEP. 2021. ‘A Multi-Billion-Dollar Opportunity - Repurposing Agricultural Support to Transform Food Systems.’ Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en. Feinberg, Joel. 1987. Harm to Others. New York: Oxford University Press. French, Peter A. 2020. ‘Types of Collectives and Responsibility.’ The Routledge Handbook of Collective Responsibility: 9-22. Gulotty, Robert. 2022. ‘WTO Subsidy Disciplines.’ World Trade Review: 1-12. DOI:10.1017/S1474745622000118. Hickel, Jason. 2017. ‘Is Global Inequality Getting Better or Worse? A Critique of the World Bank´s Convergence Narrative.’ Third World Quarterly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1333414. Holzer, Felicitas & Pogge, Thomas. 2020. ‘The Health Impact Fund.’ Covid-19 in the Global South: 173-195. Hopewell, Kristen. 2019. ‘US-China Conflict in Global Trade Governance: The New Politics of Agricultural Subsidies at the WTO.’ Review of International Political Economy 26 (2): 207-231. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2018.1560352. Igwe, Isaac O. C. 2021. ‘WTO, A Multilateral Trade Institution or a Parallel Organisation: Reform Initiatives Addressing the WTO Agricultural Trade Distortions to Developing Countries.’ Athens Journal of Law 7 (1): 65-90. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajl.7-1-4. Joseph, Sarah. 2011. ‘Blame it on the WTO? A Human Rights Critique.’ Oxford University Press Scholarship Online. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565894.001.0001. Josling, Tim. 2014. ‘The WTO, Food Security and the Problem of Collective Action.’ World Bank Seminar on Food Security. Lawford-Smith, Holly. 2019. ‘Are the ‘Affluent' Responsible for Global Poverty.’ Ethics & Global Politics 12 (1): 61-67. DOI: 10.1080/16544951.2019.1565611. Lichtenberg, Judith. 2017. ‘Responsibility for Global Poverty.’ In Ludger Heidbrink, Janina Sombetzki, Claus Langbehn, eds., Handbook of Responsibility (Springer 2017). Lichtenberg, Judith. 2010. ‘Negative Duties, Positive Duties, and the New Harms.‘ Ethics 120 (3): 557-578. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/652294. Margulis Matias E. 2018. ‘Negotiating from the Margins: how the UN Shapes the Rule of the WTO.’ Review of International Political Economy 25 (3): 364-391. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2018.1447982. Miller, David. 2008. ‘National Responsibility and Global Justice.’ Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (4): 383-399. DOI: 10.1080/13698230802415862. Moellendorf, Darrel, Pogge, Thomas. 2008. Global Justice: Seminal Essays. St. Paul: Paragon House, Nussbaum, Martha C., 2004. ‘Beyond the Social Contract: Capabilities and Global Justice.’ Oxford Development Studies 32, (1): 3-18. DOI: 10.1080/1360081042000184093. OECD. 2021. ‘Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2021: Addressing the Challenges Facing Food Systems.’ OECD Publishing Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/2d810e01-en. OECD. 2021. ‘Official Development Assistance (ODA): ODA data and trends 2021.’ Accessed April 24, 2022. https://www.oecd.org. OECD. 2022. ‘Agricultural Policy Indicators, Monitoring and Evaluation: Single commodity indicators.’ Accessed April 25, 2022. https://stats.oecd.org/. Patten, Alan. 2005. ‘Should We Stop Thinking about Poverty in Terms of Helping the Poor?’ Ethics & International Affairs 19 (1): 19-27. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7093.2005.tb00486.x. Pavel, Carmen. 2015. ‘Negative Duties, the WTO and the Harm Argument.’ Political Studies 63: 449-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12098. Pogge, Thomas. 1992. ‘Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty.’ In Global Justice: Seminal Essays, edited by Thomas Pogge & Darrel Moellendorf, 355-390. St. Paul: Paragon House. Pogge, Thomas. 2001. ‘Moral Universalism and Global Economic Justice.’ Politics, Philosophy & Economics 1 (1): 29-58. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1470594X02001001002. Pogge, Thomas. 2005. ‘Severe Poverty as a Violation of Negative Duties: Reply to the Crit-ics.’ Ethics & International Affairs 19 (1): 55-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-7093.2005.tb00490.x. Pogge, Thomas. 2005. ‘World Poverty and Human Rights.’ Ethics & International Affairs 19 (1): 1-7. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7093. 2005.tb00484.x. Pogge, Thomas. 2014. ‘Are We Violating the Human Rights of the World´s poor: Response to Four Critics.’ Yale Human Rights & Development L.J. 17: 74-87. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/yhurdvl17&i=78. Pogge, Thomas, Sengupta, Mitu. 2015. ‘The Sustainable Development Goals: A Plan for Building a Better World?’ Journal of Global Ethics 11 (1): 56-64. DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2015.1010656. Ravallion, Martin. ‘What Might Explain Today´s Conflicting Narratives on Global Inequal ity?’ In Inequality in the Developing World, edited by Carlos Gradin, Murray Leibbrandt, and Finn Tarp, 17-48. Oxford University Press, 2021. Rawls, John. 1993. ‘The Law of Peoples.’ The University of Chicago Press 20 (1): 36-68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1343947. Reitberger, Magnus. 2008. ‘Poverty, Negative Duties and the Global Institutional Order.’ Politics, Philosophy & Economics 7 (4): 379-402. DOI: 10.1177/1470594X08095750. Risse, Matthias. 2015. ‘Do We Owe the Global Poor Assistance or Rectification ?’ Ethics & International Affairs 19 (1): 1-10. Risse, Matthias. 2017. ‘Responsibility and Global Justice.’ Ratio Juris 30 (1): 41-58. Sharma, Sachin K., Adeet Dobhal, Surabhi Agrawal & Abhijit Das. 2021. ‘Demystifying Blue Box Support to Agriculture Under the WTO: Implications for Developing Countries.’ South Asia Economic Journal 22 (2): 161-185. DOI: 10.1177/13915614211035852. Smith Vincent H. & Glauber Joseph W. 2020. ‘Trade Policy and Food Security.’ Agricultural Economics 51: 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12547. Sonderholm, Jorn. 2012. ‘Thomas Pogge on Global Justice and World Poverty: A Review Essay’ Analytic Philosophy 53, (4): 366-391. Thow, Anne Marie, Sachin Kumar Sharma, Cut Novianti Rachmi. 2019. ‘An Analysis of Indonesia´s Shrinking Food Security Policy Space Under the WTO.’ Food Security 11: 1275-1287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00967-2. Townsend, Robert F.; Jaffee, Steven; Yurie Tanimichi; Htenas Aira. 2016. ‘Future of Food: Shaping the Global Food System to Deliver Improved Nutrition and Health.’ World Bank, Washington. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24104. UDHR. 1948. ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).’ https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/udhr.pdf. UNICEF. n.d. ‘Food Systems: What they are, why they matter.’ Accessed April 25, 2022. https://www.unicef.org/stories/food-systems. United Nations. 2015. ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.’ Accessed April 24, 2022. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E. World Bank. 2016. ‘Taking on Inequality: Poverty and Shared Prosperity.’ Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2020. ‘GDP – Sub-Saharan Africa. ’ Accessed April 25, 2022. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=ZG. World Bank. 2020. ‘Population, total – Sub-Saharan Africa.’ Accessed April 25, 2022. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=ZG. World Bank. 2018. ‘Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP).’ Accessed April 24, 2022. https://pip.worldbank.org/home. World Bank. 2019. ‘Prevalence of Undernourishment.’ Accessed April 24, 2022. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS?view=chart. WTO. 1995. ‘Agreement on Agriculture.’ https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/14-ag.pdf. WTO. 1995. ‘Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.’ https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf. Wright, B. D.; Williams, J.C. 1988. ‘Measurement of Consumer Gains from Market Stabilization.’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70, (3): 616-627. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1241500. Wringe, Bill. 2018. ‘Enforcing the Global Economic Order, Violating the Rights of the Poor, and Breaching Negative Duties? Pogge, Collective Agency, and Global Poverty.’ Journal of Social Philosophy 49, (2): 334-370. DOI: 10.1111/josp.12236. |
| Předběžná náplň práce |
| LIST OF ACRONYMS
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In-depth Introduction 1.2 Methodology 2. THE ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DUTIES 2.1 Basic Assumptions 2.2 Major Critics 3. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS 3.1 Global Inequality 3.2 The Injustice of the Current Global Economic Order 3.2.1 Food Security 3.2.2 Agricultural Subsidies 3.2.3 The WTO 3.3 Statistical Data Analysis 3.3.1 OECD Countries 3.3.2 Emerging Economies 3.3.3 All countries 3.3.4 Key Findings 4. CRITICAL ASSESSMENT 4.1 Argument from Plausibility 4.2 Identification of Shortcomings 4.3 Argument from Revision and Improvement 4.3.1 Argument from Amendment 5. CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Figures Appendix 2 – Tables |
| Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce |
| LIST OF ACRONYMS
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In-depth Introduction 1.2 Methodology 2. THE ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DUTIES 2.1 Basic Assumptions 2.2 Major Critics 3. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS 3.1 Global Inequality 3.2 The Injustice of the Current Global Economic Order 3.2.1 Food Security 3.2.2 Agricultural Subsidies 3.2.3 The WTO 3.3 Statistical Data Analysis 3.3.1 OECD Countries 3.3.2 Emerging Economies 3.3.3 All countries 3.3.4 Key Findings 4. CRITICAL ASSESSMENT 4.1 Argument from Plausibility 4.2 Identification of Shortcomings 4.3 Argument from Revision and Improvement 4.3.1 Argument from Amendment 5. CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Figures Appendix 2 – Tables |