Philosophy, Social Science, Global Poverty

2018

Do global financial institutions and the governments of developed nations owe anything to the global poor? I argue that they do. In my view, the global poor are owed a form of assistance because of the unjust harms imposed upon them. The negative rights of the global poor, which are the rights involving freedom from unjust interference, are consistently violated by the global economic order (GEO). I demonstrate that the causal chain that connects global poverty directly with the policies of institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization reveals that the negative rights of the global poor are being violated. These violations occur through the effects of trade policies, unjustified sovereignty, and loan conditions, which serve to trap the poor in inescapable cycles of poverty. I argue that rather than relying on controversial accounts of the positive rights of the poor, and the appeals to charity that follow from them, we can ground the obligation to alleviate global poverty in negative rights, which are more minimal and widely accepted. My argument establishes that poverty poses a problem even if one does not see inequality as a problem in itself. I argue in support of Amartya Sen's Capability Approach to poverty, which discusses the effects of poverty as a deprivation of a person's abilities to do and be what she has reason to value. This approach identifies what is really viii at the heart of the problem with poverty: a deprivation of the ability to act in ways that allow the expression of basic freedoms, rather than merely a lack of resources or income. The negative rights approach to grounding an obligation to alleviate global poverty has traditionally been based on a conception of wrongdoing as a deprivation of basic needs. However, I contend that wrongdoing should be seen as a deprivation of fundamental capabilities instead. Using capability deprivations as a baseline for wrongdoing presents us with the theoretical resources required to create a foundation for an ecumenical theory of global justice, and the framework within which to demonstrate that the GEO has an obligation to help alleviate global poverty. ix

Journal of Human Development, 2001

The extent and severity of global poverty are among the most profoundly disturbing aspects of our world. Statistics provide some sense of the scale of the problem. But they are relatively sterile, not least from being so often repeated, and fail to capture important features of the lived experience of those in severe poverty. We – relatively affluent people in the developed world – are accustomed to being able to change our circumstances for the better through hard work. We are able to guard against misfortune fairly easily most of the time. Those in severe poverty cannot do so and live in a precarious state. What would it be like for an unexpected illness or weather event to push us from just barely meeting our needs to not meeting them at all? What would it be like for our children or others close to us to die or experience debilitating illness from what (in our current state of affluence) causes only relatively short-term inconvenience? When we think about poverty, to the extent that we can, in terms of its implications for day-today experience, its prevalence and persistence seems all the more terrible. But it is one thing to recognize a terrible problem and quite another to establish who, if anyone, is responsible for doing something about it and what they might sensibly do. This book is a philosophical exploration of the nature of the moral responsibilities of relatively affluent individuals in the developed world to address global poverty and the arguments that philosophers have offered for our having these responsibilities.

2005

Revista Juridica

Objectives: The paper will try to refer to how International Law can help modify this perverse facet of global structural design (which is commonly pointed out as the source of much of the adversities that are imposed on the global poor) and thus strive to reduce inequality in a global extent, as International Law fails to guarantee that basic human needs are attained – not only in relation to food but as well as regarding health. Methodology: In this sense, the methodology used is based on bibliographical research, as well as doctrine and articles published in specialized journals.Results: The study of the conceptualization of the theory of global justice, what its objectives are and what it seeks to measure, with the conclusion that the responsibility evaluation of international institutes through the lens of a theory of global justice occurs simultaneously with the responsibility assessment of the individual at world level. They way towards a significante reduction in global ineq...

Purpose – Poverty is indeed a terrible monster confronting humanity today. It is alarming and, indeed, not without despair to note that 22,000 children under five die every day as a result of poverty. Thus, in a calendar year, more than eight million children do not progress past the age of five years. One of the world’s worst atrocities, which has endured in the minds and hearts of humanity, was the Holocaust, in which six million people were murdered. It continues to be viewed with indignation and revulsion. Bizarrely, the deaths of eight million innocents pass without notice, without indignation and revulsion, and with very few tears being shed. Does this mean that in maybe 50 years from now, we will be condemned as mass murderers, and mentioned in the same context as Hitler’s murderers? It is necessary to take note of this. It is necessary to consider our own personal position vis-a` -vis this reality and take moral decisions. This paper aims to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is a meta-analysis, which relied on secondary sources of information. It is a qualitative study which is based on conceptual analysis, theory building, and the emic perspective (authors’ viewpoint). Findings – Humanity is entrusted with the wellbeing and survival of our planet and its inhabitants, and we have definitive custodian responsibilities to exercise. In the final analysis, the hallmark of a successful life is the ability to say: I have left this earth a better place than when I arrived. If poverty is left unchecked, will we be able to make that statement with a clear and untroubled conscience? Social implications – There is indeed a solution to global poverty. In order to reach this desired state of affairs, there is just one requirement: international commitment and willingness to change the current status quo. This is not negotiable, but a necessary and sufficient ingredient for change. The rest is detail and can be achieved through a process of hard work, involvement, and essentially, empathy. Originality/value – This paper is valuable because it confronts one of the disgusting issues affecting humankind today – poverty. Poverty cannot be eradicated if we stand akimbo watching without addressing it. This piece of treatise is an effort by the authors to address it, and proffer possible ways to tackle the malady.

We citizens of the affluent countries tend to discuss our obligations toward the distant needy in terms of donations and transfers, assistance and redistribution: "How much of our wealth, if any, should we give away to the hungry abroad?" This way of conceiving the problem is a serious moral error, and a very costly one for the global poor. It depends on the false belief-widespread in the rich countries-that the causes of the persistence of severe povery are wholly indigenous to the countries in which it occurs. There are indeed national and local factors that contribute to persistent poverty in developing countries. But global institutional rules also play an important role in its reproduction, in part by sustaining the national and local factors that affluent Westerners most like to blame for the problem. Since these rules are shaped by our governments, in our name, we bear moral responsibility not merely by assisting the distant poor too little, but also, and more signi...

Review of International Studies, 2008

A large proportion of humankind today lives in avoidable poverty. This article examines whether affluent individuals and governments have moral duties to change this situation. It is maintained that an alternative to the familiar accounts of transdomestic distributive justice and personal ethics put forward by writers such as Peter Singer, John Rawls, and Thomas Pogge is required, since each of these accounts fails to reflect the full range of relevant considerations. A better account would give some weight to overall utility, the condition of the worst off, and individual responsibility. This approach provides robust support to global poverty alleviation.