Eradicating Systemic Poverty: Brief for a Global Resources Dividend

1
Eradicating Systemic Poverty Brief for a Global
Resources Dividend

• Thomas Pogge

2
Poverty

• Of the six billion people on earth, 790 million
  dont have adequate nutrition, a billion lack
  safe water, 2.4 billion dont have adequate
  sanitation (604)
• If the U.S. had its proportionate share of deaths
  from poverty more people would die each month
  than died in Vietnam.

3
Duties

• We have positive duties to help and negative
  duties to avoid upholding and profiting from
  unjust regimes.

4
Positive

• The positive case is made easily if we could
  help those that are in bad straights we should.
• The cost of this approach is that some think this
  we must only do this when it is cheap or when
  people are close to us.

5
Negative

• Pogge argues that we have a negative duty to stop
  supporting an unjust institutional system that
  keeps the poor down.

6
Inequality

• There is radical inequality
• The worse off are very badly off
• It is hard for them to improve their lot and most
  of the better off will never know what its like
• Inequality effects almost all aspects of our
  lives
• It is avoidable.

7
Venus

• Suppose we find out that there is radical
  inequality between us and Venetians. Would we
  have an obligation to help them? Are we
  contributing to injustice, to their misery, if we
  dont help?

8
The Argument

• He argues that when 1) shared institutions
  negatively impact individuals, when 2) the poor
  are excluded (without compensation) from using
  natural resources, and when 3) their poverty is a
  result of a shared violent history there is
  injustice.

9
Violations

• If we coercively maintain unjust inequality we
  are violating our negative duty not to benefit or
  contribute to injustice.
• If so, were required to alter the current
  institutional system.

10
The First Approach

• Shared institutions negatively impact
  individuals lives.
• The institutional system is shaped by the better
  off and imposed on the worse-off. (605)
• It produces radical inequality to which there is
  an alternative.
• This inequality doesnt result from extra-social
  factors.

11
Imposition

• The institutional system is shaped by the better
  off and imposed on the worse-off. (605)
• Through the rules of trade, loans, bribes, aid,
  sex tourism, exports etc. Through our
  consumption and production choices.

12
Alternatives

• It produces radical inequality to which there is
  an alternative.
• If there were a different institutional structure
  fewer people might be poor.
• Compare different national regimes to see this.

13
Endogenous

• This inequality doesnt result from extra-social
  factors.
• Extra-social factors are things like genetic
  handicaps or typhoons.
• It is the structure of international rules that
  contributes to a lot of suffering. Some people
  are born in poor families and countries with much
  worse life prospects than others.

14
Causes

• People might resist the idea that they are
  implicated in causing poverty because they are
  use to thinking about local factors are causes
  (not remote ones).

15
Corruption

• Sure corruption is a problem in developing
  countries but it is exacerbated by foreign firms
  bribing developing country officials.

16
War

• Sure wars are a problem for developing countries
  but the sale of arms to bad governments and rebel
  groups does not help.

17
Trends

• Sure poverty is declining in some places but the
  larger pattern is disturbingly stable, inequality
  is increasing and poverty is devastating.

18
Rules

• He thinks that we neednt undo interdependence
  but rework the rules structuring international
  interaction.

19
The Second Approach

• The poor are excluded (without compensation) from
  using natural resources.

20
Compensation

• The rich consume a lot without compensating the
  poor.
• The affluent pay the affluent to do so.
• Rich Saudis own the oil, not poor ones.

21
Locke

• This might be O.K. if all were better off with
  because of the current economic set up.
• If the Lockean proviso were satisfied
  appropriation might be O.K. If it were lifted
  with universal consent that might be O.K. too.
  Even if all could rationally consent to this that
  might be O.K.

22

• But none of these conditions hold!
• 18 million annual die of easily preventable
  poverty-related causes. They surely wouldnt be
  able to rationally consent to this.
• Many are born in very bad conditions because
  others own all of the goods already.

23

• citizens and governments of the affluent states
  are therefore violating a negative duty of
  justice when they, in collaboration with the
  ruling elites of the poor countries, coercively
  exclude the poor from a proportional resource
  share. (608)

24
The Third Approach

• Poverty is a result of a shared violent history
  there is injustice.
• Massive wrongs have led to the current
  distribution of wealth
• Even if one rejects the first two approaches this
  one may hold.

25
History

• Colonization, slavery, and genocide destroyed
  native institutions and cultures on four
  continents.
• Sure those of us who have benefited may owe extra
  restitution to those who have suffered, but all
  of us uphold the inequalities and are responsible
  for that.

26
Non-identity

• With different institutions different people
  might be starving in Africa now, but those that
  are starving now are starving because our
  institutions were (and are) in place.

27
Resources

• The second approach is the most demanding the
  others would allow almost any better alternative.
• It says those who use more resources should
  compensate those who use less.
• He suggests a global resource dividend (GRD) tax
  on used natural resources.

28
Taxes

• Once the inequalities are eliminated the tax may
  be small. He suggests one percent of global
  product to start. We currently give 52 billion,
  he suggests 300 billion.
• This is less than the U.S. alone spends on the
  military. We could easily raise the money by
  taxing oil alone. It would have good
  environmental consequences.

29
Dignity

• The money should help people live dignified
  autonomous lives.
• It should be given in a transparent efficient way
  that creates good incentives.
• It should meet need.
• Only 8.3 of current development assistance goes
  to basic needs, only 21 to least developed
  countries (611).

30
World Government?

• This wouldnt require a world government but
  sanctions would be necessary.

31
Burden of Proof

• He thinks he has done enough to shift the burden
  of proof to those who want to show that the
  current institutional order is just.

32
Doing Our Part

• Even if we cant expect the injustice to be
  addressed soon we must do our part in trying to
  bring about change. It is important to realize
  our role in contributing to global poverty.
• Besides it may be dangerous not to help.

33
Optimism

• Weve walked on the moon, brought down the Berlin
  wall, ended slavery, who knows? Change is
  possible.
• We only need to come to one shared political
  decision to implement a GRD.