Cosmopolitanism and Competition: Probing the Limits of Egalitarian Justice

Abstract

Abstract. This paper develops a novel competition criterion for evaluating institutional schemes. Roughly, this criterion says that one institutional scheme is normatively superior to another to the extent that the former would engender more widespread political competition than the latter. I show that this criterion should be endorsed by both global egalitarians and their statist rivals, as it follows from their common commitment to the moral equality of all persons.

Domestic institutions, growth and global justice

“…In particular, the positions of global egalitarians – who would seek to reduce global inequalities in their own right – are undermined, whereas the positions of minimalists or sufficientarians – who believe that the more modest goal of global justice is to bring everyone up to some basic minimum, perhaps expressed in terms of the enjoyment of basic human rights – are not. Thus David Wiens (2017: 95) has argued that global egalitarians ‘can sustain their position only by providing credible institutional models for implementing global egalitarianism that can be effectively realized’. Failure to do so would undermine not only redistributive proposals, but the view that global inequality ought to be reduced itself, since ‘the justification of normative principles (and not merely their realization) depends upon detailed institutional analysis’ – and this is a test which global egalitarians, with their reliance on ineffective redistributive policies, appear to fail (Wiens, 2017: 104).…”

“…Thus David Wiens (2017: 95) has argued that global egalitarians ‘can sustain their position only by providing credible institutional models for implementing global egalitarianism that can be effectively realized’. Failure to do so would undermine not only redistributive proposals, but the view that global inequality ought to be reduced itself, since ‘the justification of normative principles (and not merely their realization) depends upon detailed institutional analysis’ – and this is a test which global egalitarians, with their reliance on ineffective redistributive policies, appear to fail (Wiens, 2017: 104). According to Mathias Risse, similarly, facts about the empirical causes of development and under-development actually undermine egalitarian theories as theories of global justice.…”

“…This becomes, in essence, a scope-limited version of the claim of no effect, so let us call it restricted no effect . The claim that the impact of resources depends upon the prior level of institutional quality, and can be negligible, is defended by Wiens (2017: 97), and Nili (2016b: 207) also appears to endorse it (describing it as ‘the dominant view’ about the impact of resource wealth).…”

“…While a larger set of scholars has proven sympathetic to one or both of the two conclusions mentioned above (see e.g. Heath, 2005; Van der Vossen, 2014; Van der Vossen and Brennan, 2018; Wiens, 2017), Rawls, Risse and Nili have clearly endorsed both, and have developed them most fully. I will call the three theorists our philosophical critics .…”