Globalization and Inequality: A Plea for Global Justice

Abstract

Our age is marked by two main trajectories: globalization and democratization–which are not readily compatible. While the move toward democracy requires a certain civic equality among all participants, globalization in its present form fosters or enhances social inequality. The paper concentrates on three main types of inequality: those of power, wealth and knowledge. In each of these domains the presentation follows a prominent mentor or set of mentors: in the first domain the political scientist Samuel Huntington; in the second the economist Amartya Sen; and in the last the philosophers Heidegger and Gadamer. By way of conclusion, the paper issues a plea for cosmopolitan or global democratic justice, as a counterpoise to prevailing modes of global inequality and inequity.

The EU, the IMF, and the Representative Turn: Addressing the Challenge of Legitimacy

“…Given these shortcomings, the inclusion of different stakeholders in the policy‐making process has been pursued as a mechanism to increase representativeness of supranational and international governance (Neshkova 2010). That is to say, if we accept the argument that ‘to gain legitimacy, public policies require the endorsement (or at least consultation) of all affected, then global policymaking needs to rely on the broadest possible participation on a global scale’ (Dallmayr 2002: 154–5). 7 Legitimacy‐enhancing strategies through participation have therefore been characterized by various forms of broadening the social basis of decision making, expanding the range of participants to the policy process.…”

Dialogic Cosmopolitanism and Global Justice

“…Although we are told that ''the politics of recognition is far from unconcerned with the redistribution of wealth'' (Linklater 1998:187), it is not clear (or even addressed) how distributive issues are to be dealt with dialogically. To be sure, dialogic cosmopolitans make reference to the need for greater material equality and some have even written longer pieces on this matter (Dallmayr 2002). For the most part, however, dialogic cosmopolitans deal with issues pertaining to justice of recognition and those pertaining to distributive justice as unrelated, not the muddle Fraser, Honneth, and others have been trying to untangle (Fraser and Honneth 2003).…”

Globalization, Poverty, and the North-South Divide1

“…In addition, multinational corporations, as carriers of technology, capital, and skilled labor between states, have reinforced the negative effects of foreign capital penetration by creating enclave economies within the host countries, which are characterized by small pockets of economically developed regions, in contrast to the larger peripheral areas that exhibit extreme poverty and little progress, thus enlarging the gap between the rich and the poor (Kim 2000:1–2). In this sense, globalization is producing a new kind of hegemony that fuses power and wealth in a kind of “corporcracy” of financial markets and corporations that rule the world (Derber, quoted in Dallmayr 2002:145). In sum, the processes of globalization have led to a ruthless capitalist system characterized by exploitation, domination, and growing inequalities both within and among national societies, composed of the rich core of developed economies and the exploited, impoverished periphery of the Third World countries (Gilpin 2000:29, 300).…”

“…To start with, there is no normative international consensus whatsoever regarding the moral case for alleviating poverty and inequalities within or among states, or for that matter for reforming the global system, in the name of social and distributive justice (rather than in the name of human rights). Following the formulation of the late philosopher John Rawls, justice as fairness should be interpreted in terms of equal rights, reciprocity, global equity, and some form of redistribution of the global resources from the haves to the have‐nots (see Rawls 1971:7, 12, 73, 83; Nel 2000; Dallmayr 2002). As part of a hypothetical and ideal social contract, fairness implies that the poor should share in the gains of society as it grows, while the rich should share in the pains of society in times of crises.…”