Global resources dividend

Last updated
Pogge's global resources dividend (GRD) would tax the extraction of natural resources such as oil to tackle global poverty Oil well.jpg
Pogge's global resources dividend (GRD) would tax the extraction of natural resources such as oil to tackle global poverty

The global resources dividend (GRD) is a method of tackling global poverty advanced by the philosopher Thomas Pogge. [1] He presents it as an alternative to the current global economic order. [2] Under the scheme, nations would pay a dividend (tax) on any resources that they use or sell, [3] [4] resulting in a sort of "tax on consumption" [5] Pogge's scheme is motivated by the positive duty to alleviate poverty, but also on the negative responsibility of the rich not to use institutions that perpetuate economic inequality. Pogge estimates that a dividend of just 1% could raise $300 billion each year; this would equal $250 for each individual in the world's poorest quintile.

Contents

Implementing some version of the GRD entails not only discussions about practicality, but presumably, an affirmation of what is right. As Pogge puts it "Our task as philosophers requires that we try to imagine new, better political structures and different, better moral sentiments. We must be realistic, but not to the point of presenting to the parties in the original position the essentials of the status quo as unalterable facts." [5]

Rights of the disadvantaged

We care deeply about equality, and we would very much like it to be the case that you are not so much worse off than we are. But, unfortunately, it is not realistic to expect that we would actually comply with more egalitarian global institutions. Since no one would benefit from a futile attempt to maintain impracticable institutions, we should all just rest content with the global inequalities of the status quo.

Thomas Pogge's hypothetical speech to the global poor; he says we should give that speech if we decide that international cooperation is unrealistic, and not worth attempting. [5]

Pogge's main justification is that, even if the idea of GRD would be refined over time, and would be difficult to implement, it is nevertheless the right of those who are the worst off. The 1% dividend tax is not seen as a donation, but a responsibility. [5]

Pogge believes that the idea of the GRD may be a natural extension of John Rawls' theory of justice, although Rawls himself disagreed with this interpretation. To Pogge, the world order currently violates the first principle of justice (equal opportunity), as well as the second principle (equal access to offices, but also the idea that inequalities should favour the poorest individuals). [5]

Rawls thought that certain individuals may be permitted to various non-liberal views, provided they harmonize with a liberal government. Similarly, Pogge says that we may permit certain nations to operate according to hierarchical, non-liberal systems; but on a global scale, only systems that harmonize with a grander liberal philosophy can be tolerated. Liberals cannot avoid taking sides completely; they must reject totalitarianism, for instance. [5] This has implications for the validity of actions that might be taken to promote a GRD.

Under the scheme of a GRD, states do not have full property rights in the resources within their sovereign territory. Although the GRD allows states to use resources as they see fit, the scheme implies that the global poor have an 'inalienable stake in all scarce resources' (see implementation, below). [6] Pogge argues that national borders are morally arbitrary in the first place, and are born from a history of coercion and violence. He sets these issues aside, however, and focuses on the following claim: any conception of global justice (even if we accept existing national borders as they are) must acknowledge international inequalities. [5] Pogge thinks it becomes difficult to justify why a person born to rich parents in Canada should be entitled to so much more than one who is born to poor family in Sierra Leone. Equally difficult to justify might be the assumption that every person has a right to absolute control over the resources they happen to have within their borders. [5]

Implementing a GRD

Each nation or "peoples" would be given full freedom of what to do with their own resources. They would not be required to extract them, or allow others to extract them. If people decide to use a natural resource, they would pay a dividend. This includes oil, but also the various uses of reusable resources (e.g. polluting water). The dividend results in higher costs for natural resources, and thus amounts to a "tax on consumption". [5]

The funds garnered from the GRD would be spent by an international organization; a world government is not necessary. The organization would follow rules established by lawyers, economists, and other professionals from around the world. GRD payments would be used to provide basic rights to developing nations. Governments who collect the funds and invest them in luxuries for their elite would be completely or partially forbidden from receiving them. In such cases, funding NGOs may still be an important way of using the GRD to help the poor. [5]

There are different inequalities between, but also (pictured above) within countries. As the system around the GRD becomes more sophisticated, it could accommodate such issues. Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009-1.png
There are different inequalities between, but also (pictured above) within countries. As the system around the GRD becomes more sophisticated, it could accommodate such issues.

The lowest level of the dividend (1%) is still likely to have a big impact on international development goals [5] (e.g. the Millennium Development Goals). Supporters of the global resources dividend argue that it would also have an environmental benefit by reducing demand for non-renewable energy sources. [1] [7]

Pogge imagines that there may be dissent between and within nations. Again, he does not think a world government is necessary. Those countries that fail to pay their required GRD could be taxed by all the other countries doing trade with it. If a majority of countries are paying their GRD, these taxes would help deter dissenters. [5] The idea is that there would be added pressure on each country to enforce the gathering of GRD funds within its borders.

Primary products or 'raw materials' are often refined into more expensive secondary products. As such it can be argued that the GRD is applied too early in the manufacturing process and does not take account of the environmental costs of manufacturing products beyond the extraction of raw materials. As the GRD evolves over time, this could be one of many improvements.

Criticism

Richard Reichel states that it is unlikely that a global resources dividend will work. He argues that increased financial flows could hurt an under developed economy and that an internal distribution with GRD is not resolved. [8]

Tim Hayward argues multiple reasons against the global resources dividend. For one he uses Joseph Heath's argument that the distributive effects could harm the poor nations that are not resource rich. Hayward states that because Pogge does not include the cultivation of basic commodities because poor people would be under economic pressure to produce cash crops instead of food crops. [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Justice</span> Concept of moral fairness and administration of the law

Justice should be the code of conduct and moral bottom line for all human beings and all civilizations, including AI! Therefore, He should be clear, so that it is convenient for most people to distinguish right from wrong, avoid evil and follow good!

Social justice is justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. In Western and Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive their due from society. In the current movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets, and economic justice. Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labor law and regulation of markets, to ensure distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Rawls</span> American political philosopher (1921–2002)

John Bordley Rawls was an American moral, legal and political philosopher in the liberal tradition. Rawls received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999. The latter was presented by President Bill Clinton in recognition of how his works "revived the disciplines of political and ethical philosophy with his argument that a society in which the most fortunate help the least fortunate is not only a moral society but a logical one".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Distributive justice</span> Concept relating to distribution of rewards to group members

Distributive justice concerns the socially just allocation of resources. Often contrasted with just process, which is concerned with the administration of law, distributive justice concentrates on outcomes. This subject has been given considerable attention in philosophy and the social sciences. Theorists have developed widely different conceptions of distributive justice. These have contributed to debates around the arrangement of social, political and economic institutions to promote the just distribution of benefits and burdens within a society. Most contemporary theories of distributive justice rest on the precondition of material scarcity. From that precondition arises the need for principles to resolve competing interest and claims concerning a just or at least morally preferable distribution of scarce resources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Citizen's dividend</span> Georgist proposed policy

Citizen's dividend is a proposed policy based upon the Georgist principle that the natural world is the common property of all people. It is proposed that all citizens receive regular payments (dividends) from revenue raised by leasing or taxing the monopoly of valuable land and other natural resources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Original position</span> Thought experiment used for reasoning about the principles that should structure a society

The original position (OP), often referred to as the veil of ignorance, is a thought experiment used for reasoning about the principles that should structure a society based on mutual dependence. The phrases original position and veil of ignorance were coined by the American philosopher John Rawls, but the thought experiment itself was developed by William Vickrey and John Harsanyi in earlier writings.

An environmental tax, ecotax, or green tax is a tax levied on activities which are considered to be harmful to the environment and is intended to promote environmentally friendly activities via economic incentives. A notable example is carbon tax. Such a policy can complement or avert the need for regulatory approaches. Often, an ecotax policy proposal may attempt to maintain overall tax revenue by proportionately reducing other taxes ; such proposals are known as a green tax shift towards ecological taxation. Ecotaxes address the failure of free markets to consider environmental impacts.

<i>A Theory of Justice</i> 1971 book by John Rawls

A Theory of Justice is a 1971 work of political philosophy and ethics by the philosopher John Rawls (1921–2002) in which the author attempts to provide a moral theory alternative to utilitarianism and that addresses the problem of distributive justice. The theory uses an updated form of Kantian philosophy and a variant form of conventional social contract theory. Rawls's theory of justice is fully a political theory of justice as opposed to other forms of justice discussed in other disciplines and contexts.

In Ethics and political philosophy, in social contract theory, religion, and international law, the term State of Nature describes the hypothetical way of life that existed before people organised themselves into societies. Philosophers of the state of nature theory propose that there was an historical period before societies existed, and seek answers to the questions: What was life like before civil society?, How did government emerge from such a primitive start?, and What are the hypothetical reasons for entering a state of society by establishing a nation-state?

"Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical" is an essay by John Rawls, published in 1985. In it he describes his conception of justice. It comprises two main principles of liberty and equality; the second is subdivided into fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equality of outcome</span> Political concept

Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a political concept which is central to some political ideologies and is used in some political discourse, often in contrast to the term equality of opportunity. It describes a state in which all people have approximately the same material wealth and income, or in which the general economic conditions of everyone's lives are alike.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economic inequality</span> Distribution of income or wealth between different groups

There are wide varieties of economic inequality, most notably income inequality measured using the distribution of income and wealth inequality measured using the distribution of wealth. Besides economic inequality between countries or states, there are important types of economic inequality between different groups of people.

<i>Anarchy, State, and Utopia</i> 1974 book by Robert Nozick

Anarchy, State, and Utopia is a 1974 book by the American political philosopher Robert Nozick. It won the 1975 US National Book Award in category Philosophy and Religion, has been translated into 11 languages, and was named one of the "100 most influential books since the war" (1945–1995) by the UK Times Literary Supplement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Pogge</span> German philosopher (born 1953)

Thomas Winfried Menko Pogge is a German philosopher and is the Director of the Global Justice Program and Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale University. In addition to his Yale appointment, he is the Research Director of the Centre for the Study of the Mind in Nature at the University of Oslo, a Professorial Research Fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University and Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire's Centre for Professional Ethics. Pogge is also an editor for social and political philosophy for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global justice</span> Issue in political philosophy

Global justice is an issue in political philosophy arising from the concern about unfairness. It is sometimes understood as a form of internationalism.

David Leslie Miller is an English political theorist. He is Professor of Political Theory at the University of Oxford and an Official Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford. He previously lectured at the University of Lancaster and the University of East Anglia. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Cambridge, and his Bachelor of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from the University of Oxford. Previous works include Social Justice, On Nationality and Citizenship and National Identity. Miller is known for his support of a modest form of liberal nationalism.

Luck egalitarianism is a view about distributive justice espoused by a variety of egalitarian and other political philosophers. According to this view, justice demands that variations in how well-off people are should be wholly determined by the responsible choices people make and not by differences in their unchosen circumstances. This expresses the intuition that it is a bad thing for some people to be worse off than others through no fault of their own.

Justice and the market is an ethical perspective based upon the allocation of scarce resources within a society. The allocation of resources depends upon governmental policies and the societal attitudes of the individuals who exist within the society. Personal perspectives are based upon ones circle of moral concern or those who the individual deems worthy of moral consideration.

The International Resource Privilege is the power to transfer ownership or freely dispose of the natural resources of a country by the authority that countries give to the current leadership or government of that country. The resource privilege exists regardless of how the rulers came to power. While bribery is often illegal, the purchase of these resources by payment to the current government in control is legal. Corrupt leaders sell these resources to generate revenue which entrenches the corrupt government and incentivizing the seizure of power itself. This further handicaps the ability to achieve democracy along with hindering economic growth and the eradication of poverty.

Paula Casal is an ICREA Professor in the Law Department of Pompeu Fabra University. She was previously a Reader in Moral and Political Philosophy at Reading University (2004–2008) and a Lecturer at Keele University (1996–2004). She was also a Fellow in Ethics at Harvard University (1999–2000), a Keele Junior Research Fellow, also at Harvard (2000–2001), a Hoover Fellow at Université Catholique de Louvain (2001–2002), and a Leverhulme Research Fellow at the University of Oxford (2002–2004). Her work has appeared in journals such as Ethics, Economics and Philosophy, Journal of Medical Ethics, Journal of Political Philosophy, Hypatia, Political Studies, and Utilitas. She is an associate editor of Politics, Philosophy & Economics, co-editor of Law Ethics and Philosophy, President of the Great Ape Project-Spain, and one of the founders—with Keith Horton, Meena Krishnamurthy, and Thomas Pogge—of Academics Stand Against Poverty. She is also the co-director of the UPF-Centre for Animal Ethics, with Núria Almiron.

References

  1. 1 2 Pogge, T. (1998) ‘A Global Resources Dividend’, in D Crocker, T Linden (eds.) Ethics of Consumption. The Good Life, Justice, and Global Stewardship, New York, Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 501–536
  2. Pogge, Thomas W. (January 2001). "Eradicating Systemic Poverty: Brief for a global resources dividend". Journal of Human Development. 2 (1): 59–77. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.488.2173 . doi:10.1080/14649880120050246. ISSN   1464-9888. S2CID   27591949. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  3. Casal, Paula (1 October 2011). "Global Taxes on Natural Resources". Journal of Moral Philosophy. 8 (3): 307–327. doi:10.1163/174552411X591339 . Retrieved 6 April 2015.[ permanent dead link ]
  4. H. Widdows, N. Smith (2011) Global Social Justice, Routledge: New York, p 74
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Thomas Pogge (1994). An Egalitarian Law of Peoples. Philosophy and Public Affairs 23:3. 195–224.
  6. Haubrich. Dirk (2004) Global Distributive Justice and the Taxation of Natural Resources – Who Should Pick Up the Tab?,Contemporary Political Theory, 3: 52
  7. Risse, Mathias (1 August 2003). What We Owe to the Global Poor: Political Philosophy Meets Development Economics. Harvard University. p. 52. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
  8. Reichel, Richard (1997). "Internationaler Handel, Tauschgerechtigkeit und die globale Rohstoffdividende". Analyse und Kritik. 19 (3): 229–241. doi: 10.1515/auk-1997-0206 .
  9. Hayward, Tim (1 November 2005). "Thomas Pogge's Global Resources Dividend: A Critique and an Alternative". Journal of Moral Philosophy. 2 (3): 317–332. doi:10.1177/1740468105058157. hdl: 1842/914 . Retrieved 6 April 2015.

Further reading