Criticising the redistributive approach,
Or The injustice of the G-7 and the limitations of nature
Emilio-Andres Araya
The question of international justice has resurfaced since the beginning of the 1990’s mainly in response to environmental issues, acquisition and distribution of resources and world poverty. It is now more evident that the problems that arise from these are not solely the concern of the corresponding nations, but because of its global impact, an international matter. The theories discussed by Nussbaum, Beitz, Singer and Pogge, for example, all seem to be directed towards human rights and development, redistribution of resources and compensation.[1] However, with some perspective we will realise that none address explicitly the role of the environment in securing the basic minimum for a human life. In trying to solve the major issues related to world poverty, one cannot leave aside environmental issues and duty to future generations.
In a fair and just world, every individual would have a minimum amount of goods and equal access to development. However, reality is not so comforting. I argue that such goals are not feasible in the present condition, under the current consumption rate of the richest countries simply because we do not live in a world of abundant resources, and what might be a preliminary solution to starvation, for example, will put a strain on the ecosystem that will deteriorate everyone's future. Consequently, for there to be any chance not to lay our planet to waste, big consumers of developed nations will have to review their life styles and that can only be achieved by addressing the people of those nations at the community level.
To better understand all that is at stake here, one should consider the main arguments for aiding the poor of other nations. Singer argues that there is no moral difference between helping a child drowning in proximity and helping the starving in another country. He further claims that being among other people that can participate in the rescue does not reduce our responsibility to help that child, or consistently to the starving. Thus, when we are spending money on objects that we do not need for our marginal utility, we are doing wrong to those starving since that money would obviously save lives. Arthur opposes Singer and states that since we have no commitment to help the starving it is not our responsibility to help them. Any help of our part must be seen as an act of charity (or positive rights). Thus, we have rights over our body, our money, our possessions and Arthur defends inaction by appealing to our own rights. Arthur criticises Singer’s principle: “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer p.231) on the grounds that it cannot be applied universally. He argues that a reasonable moral code would not ask to help another if it involves substantial reduction of one’s level of well-being. First, he mentions that in his idea of moral code, Singer does not consider entitlements (rights and just desert) that are also morally important. For example, the right over our body outweighs a duty to help and while donating a kidney might save a life, it is not required and compliance to do so would be considered heroic. However, Singer does not claim that people do not have entitlements as Arthur assumes. Otherwise, he would have simply said that humanitarian organisations should directly take the money from people’s bank account. Instead, Singer argues that people should willingly give to the poor. And that is not a matter of rights over goods, but of ideology.
Pogge believes that we are responsible for the situation of the poor and that we have a duty to help and not merely to give money to an organisation. According to Pogge, there are three grounds for the injustice in the world: “the effect of shared social institutions, the uncompensated exclusion from the use of natural resources and the effect of a common and violent history.” (Pogge p.199) The first claim attacks institutions. It says that the order shared by the institutions is one influenced by those who are better-off and is imposed to the worst-off. The developed countries, with military and economic superiority are able to maintain the rules that benefit them. This means the lives of the worst-off depend very much on the consumption of the better-off (sex tourism and rising food prices influenced by the demand in biofuels, obvious examples of such injustice). Therefore, the rules of the world economy being shaped by affluent countries according to their interests reproduce poverty. Second, the better-off enjoy advantages from the natural resources while the poor goes uncompensated. While the affluent might pay for those natural resources, too often it is to an elite that give practically nothing to the poor. They might be able to come to own a share of the natural resources, but limited education and employment opportunities will earn them just enough to have the minimum to survive. Third, the situation between the better-off and worst-off can be traced to a common and violent history. Thus social inequalities are not the result of a natural catastrophe, but rather from conquest, colonisation, enslavement, etc. Pogge claims that the rules that have violated the rights of the poor cannot simply be erased centuries later. Even if the two previous approaches were rejected, the third one would still lead to the conclusion that the inequalities of the present have been attained through serious injustice and so that the existing inequalities are still unjust. Thus, Pogge demonstrates that we (the global rich) are in fact causing and maintaining the inequalities of the poor and that we are not respecting our negative duties. He establishes that we have indeed an obligation to help the worst-off. In the end, Pogge’s proposal to eradicate world poverty is in the establishment of the Global Resources Dividend. The GRD would require governments to pay a percentage on resources they use to be given as payment to the poor who are also entitled to a share of the world’s natural resources.
Our role in helping the poor seems clear and so we could provide the food necessary to relieve world hunger, and that up to the foreseeable future, as global food supply indicate that we grow enough food to come to the aid of those most in need.[2] However, there is no indication that world hunger can be overcome through food supply alone. A more sustainable solution would call to invest time and resources to develop the institutions that will see to prevent future starvation, though it would entail at the present time, the sacrifice of a greater number of lives in order to do so. But coming to the aid of the starving is not the only decision we must make. We must also consider that reaching the goals of the political philosophers I have mentioned and save the poor might jeopardise future generation’s well-being, as I explain below.
An equally pressing matter to helping the starving, but that the majority of philosophers fail to address thoroughly in consequence of their global justice theories, is the protection of the environment. In the current state, our consumption of natural resources might serve our enjoyment, but continuing at such rate will surely rob future generations of the minimum for their well-being.[3] According to the WWF’s 2004 Living Planet Report, between 1961 and 2001, our consumption of fossil fuels has increased by almost 700 percent. WWF chief Claude Martin said:
"We are spending nature's capital faster than it can regenerate…We are running up an ecological debt which we won't be able to pay off unless governments restore the balance between our consumption of natural resources and the earth's ability to renew them." [4]
It is not a case of saving nature versus feeding people, for we already have enough food to feed those in need without having to suck the life out of our planet. It is a case of inequality of consumption and how the richest nations misuse their resources. “The G-7 nations hold about one-fifth of the world's five billion persons, and they produce and consume about four-fifths of all goods and services.”[5] In reality, Earth can only be exploited to a certain level before we unbalance the ecosystem (global warming, deforestation, starvation of the ocean, etc.) and it begins to "self-destroy”. And the greatest victims of natural disasters will inevitably be the poor, who are the most vulnerable to climate change. Maintaining G-7 consumption level and raising the third worlds even to a minimum represents a tremendous risk. In fact, it will give the poor nations the necessary means to kick off their development and that cannot be done unless we lower the rate of consumption of natural resources in the rich countries.[6] I will come back to this argument shortly.
Now, some would say that the redistribution of resources is not the best way to deal with the problem of poverty. According to Rawls “The great social evils in poorer societies are likely to be oppressive government and corrupt elites.” (Rawls p.77) And as Beitz then comments “If the great social evils impeding social progress are primarily internal and non-economic, then a principle of international justice would be superfluous.”(Beitz p.279) If such is the case of the nations we seek to help, then what is proposed by Singer and Pogge will not bear fruit and might rather go into creating more inequalities. If we then intended to send resources (money, food, technology) that could be seized by the corrupted, would direct intervention (setting up institutions, hospitals, schools, pipelines and to set up some sort of agriculture) that will promote the well being and the development of poor people be a better solution? However, even for those who are sceptical of a redistributive method and would favour a more direct intervention, we will eventually face the same constraint as I was discussing earlier, i.e. strain on the environment. And so, the farms we will establish and the pipelines that we will build will not help at all if the degradation of productive land or desertification keeps progressing or if more of the water they drink is contaminated. They might eat and drink, but that is in the present. In the short term, they might die from poisoning or they might give birth to sick and deformed children. Moreover, assuming that the minimum has been attained and that the well-being of people now rests on the hands of their own government to develop an economy and trade that will allow them to have opportunities for further development, after then having faced starvation and poverty, they will very likely face exploitation and corruption. The developing countries will then be the means for international corporations to make more profit on cheaper work force where the government will fail to protect its own citizens by running down environmental and labour standards, as well as offering huge tax concessions, getting rid of union rights, minimum wage requirements, safety measures and social insurance.[7] Thus, we cannot simply ignore the situation and entirely relegate the responsibility of maintaining the balance of our fragile ecosystem (or “re-establishing it” would be more accurate) on the developing nations.
Assuming we improve the worst-off’s situation and secure them a minimum for their well-being, what will result from a world where poor nations will then be able to turn their attention to development is that, just as we see in the Kyoto protocol, the now (further) developing nations will not be subjected to the same regulations as the rich countries, though theirs is supposedly a temporary clause. If only 55 industrialised nations that have ratified the protocol are producing 55% of the worlds CO2 emissions, and the other 122 developing nations produce 44.2 %, can we imagine the rise of CO2 emissions if those 122 countries seek to attain the same living standards as the 55 industrialised? If the United States of America, which is the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, and Australia, two well developed and powerful countries, have not yet ratified the protocol despite heavy international criticism then our future doesn’t look very bright. And rest assured that those developing nations will not be satisfied with marginal utility if for no other reason that giant corporations, on the constant look out for emerging markets, will fiercely promote the way of life which citizens of rich nations enjoy. We would then be true hypocrites to deny them the comfort that we have been enjoying for so many decades.
To some extent, I approve Peter Singer's view that we should not follow the Western Idea of economy based on consumption. We gain far more money than we need to live a decent life.[8] Moreover, we have for too long left our consumption of natural resources unchecked and it is time we realise that even the smallest of actions will contribute to improving the environment. Leaving the car home and taking public transportation or even the bicycle if distance allows, not leaving the water running for long periods of time, turning off our lights or using more efficient light bulbs, choosing containers made of glass instead of plastic, using a fabric bag instead of plastic bags for shopping, etc. Those are all easy and simple actions that need little effort and nothing more than a breaking of habit. The change needed is in the way of life of consumers of the rich countries. With a few changes to our “wasting habits” we would then have more means to contribute part of our earnings wisely in environmental and humanitarian organisations or even better, to give our surplus as salaries to incite people to go over there and work in the construction of those pipelines and farms. And if as some fear, a decrease of productivity occurs because people might not then feel motivated to work anymore, then so much the better. It might show that we are working more than we really need to. Change the weekly working hours from 50 to 30 and let companies establish themselves in poor countries with the same working regulations so that the poor can benefit from the remaining 20 hours.[9]
Thus, Singer attacks the idea that people feel the need to surround themselves with more commodity than they truly need. Elster refers to “adaptive preference” (how one’s satisfaction is adjusted to the level they know they can aspire to). So the filthy rich that own a mansion, cars, boats and resorts would probably not settle for an apartment in the suburbs and public transportation. Moreover, people’s satisfaction is not only relative to themselves, and in a society of consumption it is relative to the possession of others. One most probably comes to desire what the neighbour possesses. Most examples can be imagined with basic electronic appliances. With the rapid technological development, people in rich countries will therefore never settle for a limit and the standard of living in those countries can only increase while those in poor countries will decrease, has the numbers already show. However, the issue is that if we attack the problem of poverty in poor nations via something like a global dividend or directly help development, because of the ecological consequences that would result from the development of poor nations, or still, if we try to implement Singer’s argument on giving up our “luxurious ways” to help the poor, it will be inevitable that we address the over-consumption of wealthy countries. Thus, at one point the change will have to come from the consumers themselves. Sadly, it is highly unlikely that people will deliberately accept to give up their commodities for a greater cause, mostly because we feel rather disconnected from what happens somewhere so far away. Therefore, what will have to be dealt with is the problem of motivation.
As Dewey highlighted its importance, it seems to me that regarding the problem of consumption in developed countries, the focus must be done at the community level by those who are concerned by international matters and the environment and thus reach to others. There is a lot of information for the one who wants to find out more about such issues and make a conscious decision to play his or her part in helping reduce consumption, one little action at the time. However, there are many others who, for different reasons, might it be for lack of time or interest, peer pressure or simple ignorance, would do well to be reminded how crucial their participation is. One way to reach those people would be by organising local events or consciousness-raising campaigns, not necessarily to collect money, but if for nothing else than to promote awareness on how we could easily make a difference by changing a few of our old habits. Dewey said: “In its deepest and richest sense a community must always remain a matter of face-to-face intercourse” (Dewey p.211) and that is why it is important to realise that for an awareness campaign to be effective, it has to take place in, and address, neighbourhood communities. Ideally, municipalities would be implicated in the project and provide some funding to help advertise the events that would take place throughout the city, but the help of local volunteers would help establish a greater sense of community by involving people known within it. Running messages on television or the radio, or organising one big event located in only one part of the city would, above all, attract those who are already aware of the situation, but it would fail to reach those who don’t feel concerned about the problem. Organising local events at strategic times, how small it may be, at the local park for example, would make it much more personal and convenient, especially with todays fast pace life style. After a long days work, people might not feel particularly inclined to go check out an event for which they don’t have much interest all the way across town, when they have to go pick up the kids, get home and prepare dinner and attend to whatever other matter they must. A short stroll out of the house to check out what the fuss is about at the corner wouldn’t require a long trip or much time and could prove quite enjoyable. Making people aware of the situation and making them realise that, for starters, small changes to our daily habits can already make a big difference, is the first step in finding the motivation to help the poor and to be involved in rectifying this global crisis.
In conclusion, pondering on theories of redistributive justice and the basis for adequate human development has to be done with environmental issues in mind and in conjunction with promoting awareness on reducing wasteful consumption. In attaining at least the basic minimum for the poor to survive, Pogge’s proposal of the GRD is a more practical and efficient solution in the short term than Singer’s or Arthur’s, but it could be a time bomb for the whole planet. First, whether through the redistribution of resources or direct help in setting up infrastructures, we cannot assume that upon reaching a minimum they will not be able to further develop their countries since Pogge himself stated:
“The goal is not merely to improve the nutrition, medical care, and sanitary conditions of the poor, but also to make it possible that they can themselves effectively defend and realize their basic interests.” (Pogge p.197)
Then we cannot assume that the development of their countries will not escape the corruption of institutions and corporation that will not comply with environmental or labour regulations. Finally, the planet would not be able to support very long the strain of a whole world raising to North American standards of living unless it is done so with revision of appropriate regulations of the most polluting and exploiting corporations already in place, which in reality is too great of a gamble. In the end, something along Singer’s view seems to be the most hopeful for everyone’s well-being, including that of future generations and as he mentioned, we are so wealthy compared to others that we might not need to reach marginal utility in order for the poorest to do so. The point is that people need to realise that they are being told to want more than they truly need by a consumption based economy. But behind the idea lies the problem of motivation for people to want to make the changes necessary for the benefice of all of us who are concerned. While I cannot begin to discuss sociological problems, any change in people’s way of living would ideally be done through education, but that too is afflicted by corruption. With the increasing disappearance of religion in North America, which once used to gather members of a community under one building every weekend and tell them about fraternity and mutual aid, it would seem difficult to rally everyone in a fragmented and individual society. For those of us who feel we are so far away from the extreme poverty we see in third world countries and too short-sighted to notice the ongoing deterioration of the ecosystem, it is crucial that people from their own community present these problems more personally than through mediatisation. It is through the bonds that unite neighbourhood communities that we will create the motivation for ecological and humanitarian change.
References
Arthur, John. ‘Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code’, in H. LaFollette, Ethics in
Practice: An Anthology, (Blackwell Publishing, 2002)
Beitz, Charles. ‘International Liberalism and Distributive Justice’, World Politics 51.2
(Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999)
Dewey, John. The Public and its Problems, (New York: Holt, 1927)
Elster, Jon. Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality, (
Nussbaum, Martha. ‘Capabilities and Human Rights’, in P. De Greiff and C. Cronin eds.,
Global Justice and Transnational Politics, (
Pogge, Thomas. World Poverty and Human Rights, (
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993)
Singer, Peter. ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1972,
Vol. 1 No.1
Some links on how to reduce consumption:
Energy: http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/genergy.asp
Bags: http://www.reusablebags.com/action.php?id=3
Water: http://www.organiccoupons.org/blog/2008/07/25-painless-ways-you-can-reduce-your-water-consumption/
Paper: http://www.5minutesforgoinggreen.com/94/reduce-paper-consumption/?action=print
[1] Charles Beitz's intentions for some sort of global governance is to establish distributive justice and basic human rights and he expresses in Cosmopolitan liberalism the insurance that every individual has a global stature not limited by the state. Martha Nussbaum hopes to create an international agreement of the basis of human rights, by shifting the focus on capabilities, Peter Singer, calls for a duty for the wealthy to give considerably to the poor, while Thomas W. Pogge emphasising a resource based method to ensure that the poorest have access to a minimum, tries to prove our responsibility for aiding, but in implementing a resource dividend (GRD) that is not as demanding for consumers.
[2] FAO’s first forecast for world cereal production in 2008 stands at a record 2 164 million tonnes (including rice in milled terms), 2.6 percent up from last year’s crop, which was the previous global high.
...Food consumption of cereals is forecast to reach 1 006 million tonnes, an increase of about 1 percent from 2006/07. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ai465e/ai465e04.htm 2008/08/28
[3] In its regular Living Planet Report, the World Wide Fund for Nature said our footprint now exceeds the world’s ability to regenerate by about 25 per cent. Living Planet Report 2006
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/96 2008/08/28
[5] And that was data from the World Development Report 1991 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). More recently, according to the World Bank, the 2.3 billion residents of low-income countries accounted for less than 3% of public and private consumption in 2004, while the 1 billion residents of high-income countries consumed more than 80% of the global total.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/general/2007/0831consumption.htm 2008/08/28
[6] If developing nations continue to increase their consumption to match industrialized nations, worldwide consumption would increase 75 percent and the list of regions that consume beyond local production would get a lot longer. http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2004/WWFPresitem729.html 2008/08/28
[7] For example, it is no secret of the exploitation of Chinese workers by US factories: The research
report found employees had to work for more than 16 hours a day for an entire month but earned as little as 300 yuan (HK$282) a month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05sweatshop.html 2008/08/28
2004 marked the 20th year since the tragedy of Bhopal that might have been avoided had the safety measures not been violated: Authorities say at least 15,000 people have died in what has been described as the world's worst industrial accident, although activists put the number at some 33,000. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/02/india.bhopal.mark/ 2008/28/28
[8] And then again, it might just be a matter of adjusting our consumption habits to buying cheaper toilet paper at 1$ instead of the new Cottonel cashmere at 2, 50 $ or not buying 10 different pair of jeans when just one or two would do just fine.
[9] After all, it is not such an alien idea.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/761/39296 2008/08/29
