Thursday, May 7, 2009

Practical application of the theoretical proposals

Like many of the other blog participants my concerns about Chapters 8 and 9 and the proposals outlined therein stems from its implementation and enforcement. The questions raised deal less with the theory behind the proposals, which I think Pogge explains fairly well in general, and more with the practical application of such a proposal.

The proposals in Chapter 8 and 9 both call for some redistribution of wealth and resources, which, no matter the plan, would be hard to implement. Though it might be the morally correct action, few countries or people are going to sign on for this, regardless of how much moral momentum this might accumulate. Even though the proposed amount that he included as a means of building the GRD is small, I still think any policy shift would meet with considerable resistance.

Beyond persuading countries and taxpayers to accept and internalize these proposed solutions, there’s the matter of who will collect the money and how it will be distributed. These are not insurmountable problems, but are another example of where Pogge’s arguments have failed to cross from the theoretical to the practical.

While part of me wants to believe that as a global society people would be willing to address poverty and the illnesses it engenders, another part is cynical that such measures would ever appear in policy and work in the way Pogge intends if they did.

Pogge

First, my post that I just wrote for the blog (the same one I'm writing now) was deleted immediately when I finished it. Thanks Blogger haha.

Ok, back to Pogge. The GRD idea intrigues me for three reasons.

First-accountability. This refers to those who would be recieving assitance from the GRD. My worry is that those individuals will develop a dependence on GRD funds instead of becoming more self-sustaining with the extra help. I realize one reply may recognize dependence is better than the current alternative. I feel the point of the GRD, or any relief effort, aims to provide relief not with greater long-term outlook than short-term. Consider this: We live in a world of limited resources. If we recognize that our resources available keep shrinking and our population keeps growing, we must have some way of making people self-sufficient eventually or the GRD would be ineffective in assisting the new individuals needing assistance in the world.

Second-who contributes and how and distribution. I'm disappointed that Pogge fails to speak more clearly as to how his plan would be acted in specifics. Unfortunately for this reader, Pogge leaves many of the most important decisions to economists and international lawyers. The very issues that he leaves to economists and international lawyers, though, are some of the biggest obstacles for him to overcome. For instance, the distribution of funds gained from the GRD. Or what if a majority of the comparatively wealthiest countries do not want to contribute to the GRD, instead creating domestic programs similar to the GRD? Basically, I wish his theory would be a bit more developed in these areas, though I recognize this is indeed a difficult task.

Third-GRD is...well...interesting. If the standards could be universalized in collection and distribution of GRD funds, I think Pogge may have a viable process in attempting to curb world poverty. The whole concept, though, needs more development in order to be viable. I look forward to class discussion of the viability of the GRD.

Last Chapter

Last Chapter


Thomas Pogge’s last chapter in his World Poverty and Human Rights provides the justification in why we are responsible for world poverty and offers, what I think, a solution to the problem of world poverty. On page 199, Pogge provides three ground of injustice; these are “effects of shared social institutions, the uncompensated exclusion from the use of natural resources, and the effects of a common and violent history.” The one that caught my attention was the second principle, the uncompensated exclusion from the use of natural resources. He later explains brings interesting condition, in addition to the other conditions on page 198,199, and 203, to consider: “The better-off enjoy significant advantages in the use of a single natural resource base from whose benefits the worse-off are largely, and without compensation, excluded” (202).
This makes me supports an idea, that is not new and I think common, that the rich nations of the world benefit from the poor nations, such as mining and oil operations and manufactories productions. Therefore, this makes me think two things about the second principle. One, since a rich nation is benefiting from the poor nation, while excluding them too, then makes me believe that the rich nation enjoy and furnish on the benefits and forget or disregard where or how they are getting them. And two, those born within a rich nation understand or think about the people suffering and work twice as harder to get natural resources to the rich nations.
In addition, I think the knowledge of world poverty is key factor in this issue. It reasonable to believe that if people, in a rich nation with all necessary and addition resource in their disposal, who probably never consider the fact that there would be people suffering horribly and dying for the rich nation’s benefits and resources. Again, if a person doesn’t see it, hear it, or think about world poverty, then it wouldn’t even be considered bad or good. However, even if we heard about world poverty and that we were responsible for it; then I would think that information would be discarded because it provides a unpleasant feeling towards the people of the rich nation. I think Pogge first paragraph of his conclusion is a powerful statement.
“We are familiar, through charity appeals, with the assertion that it lies in our hands to save the lives of many or, by doing nothing, to let these people die. We are less familiar with the assertion examined here of a weightier responsibility: that most of us do not merely let people starve, but participate in starving them. It is not surprising that our initial reaction to this more unpleasant assertion is indignation, even hostility – that, rather than think it through or discuss it, we want to forgot it or put it aside as plainly absurd.” (214)
---Thomas Pogge

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Pogge puts forth a proposal called the GRD, if the statistics he puts forth are correct, I think that this is a very good idea; however, I have major doubts that this is nothing but a theoretical solution to the problem. I don’t disagree with him on many grounds of his theory, but my main problem is, to what degree is any of this a realistic solution. “Idea that the global poor own an inalienable stake in all limited natural resources.”(202) I don’t disagree with this, but on what grounds is this claim being made? It seems to me that if just the poor own a stake in it, then many other people, no matter how wealthy they may be, would want the same share in it. Also, I am not seeing how this claim is connecting directly with his claim on how institutions are contributing to the global crisis. It seems that he says we have a negative duty to change the institutions but then says the way to solve the problem is to establish this GRD, is this how he is suggesting that our negative duty should be fulfilled? A more practical claim in my opinion would be that there be a GRD within each country, but not a GRD on the global scale, where it is only going to the poor. Again, I don’t disagree; I just think that there would be an unfathomable amount of resistance for applying this type of distribution. I just don’t see how this is connected to our negative duty we are failing to fulfill. I agree with him that our institutions need to be radically altered but how is the GRD part of that? If anyone could make it clearer to me, that would be helpful.

In section 8.2.2 he says “Yes, the affluent often pay for the resources they use, such as imported crude oil. But these payments go to other affluent people.”(208) this just seems out place and to me doesn’t go along with the rest of his theory and argument. In section 8.1.1 when he talks about the institutions that seems to coincide with the last few chapters a lot more then this section. Also, in 8.2.3 when he is talking about how history has brought us here he says, “Without these crimes there would not be the actually existing radical inequality which consists in these persons being affluent and those being extremely poor.”(210) I understand that he says that history has brought us to this point considering slavery, genocide and etc., but again this doesn’t seem much more than an observation of history. He says that these are the three grounds for injustice, are these three it though? I think we need to act on this urgent issue. I’m just not seeing how these lasts two grounds really connect up or stand firm within his theory, even though there just grounds he is putting forth for injustice. I agree with the suggestion about the GRD, it just doesn’t seem to be plausible.

“We are violating a negative duty of justice insofar as we contribute to the harms it reproduces and insofar as we resist as we resist suitable reforms.”(216) part of the reform, at least from his perspective, is that we need to establish this GRD because the poor have received the short end of the deal throughout history and this potentially has created the problem. So would this GRD be some sort of compensation for the poor? Given that they have not been able to benefit from it as much as the people in the affluent countries. And if this is compensation for past actions (or lack thereof) then what else are the poor entitled to claim, on grounds of compensation? I agree 100% that our current institutions need to be reformed; I just think that the GRD is too theoretical and does not properly fit in, given the rest of his theory.

every time I read mortality my head would switch it to morality...annoying

This system where a drug company can choose to market a drug either as an essential drug for the public good or nonessential drug for the private market makes this system a very interesting one. It allows for drug companies to increase their profits by being able to work towards creating drugs that before would have not produced any where near enough money to cover the cost of development. Pharmaceuticals can make money on these drugs by labeling them as essential drugs which in turn will be sold for just above marginal cost or perhaps even less than marginal cost because the tab will be picked up by the wealthiest nations rather than by those in need of the medications. Yet, companies would still be able to sell the drugs that bring in the real money like Viagra and what not at the premiums they currently enjoy. This will allow the research field to increase which will offer more jobs in the developed world by allowing for more pharmacists in high paying research positions that would have previously been not worth the time. The cost this puts on the developed world Pogge argues would in the end not really be more than these countries already pay in relief aid, loans that never get paid back, and also reduce the chance of pandemics because diseases like SARS that started in poorer parts of poor countries would not have gone untreated until it made it's way into the developed world. All of this and we haven't even hit the ethical bonuses yet, I am rather impressed with this plan.
As far as the ethical bonuses go we would be eliminating the balancing act pharmaceuticals do between saving lives and making money by allowing them to do both. The developing world would also be able to build up moral credit by their paying for the drugs that will help eliminate some of the conditions that kill the poorest people on earth. Even if that is not enough for you, another bonus on the moral side is that you will be creating a healthy population of the worlds poorest which means they will be able to work more because they are not sick all the time. This may make it possible for some of them to achieve a level of existence where they can procure the basic needs for existence. This will be working to help eliminate severe poverty and also lesson the burden on governments to spend funds continually treating symptoms of the problems because they are unable to address the underlying causes of their lacking workforce.

My last post :(

My last post in college...crazy.

I'd like to talk about both the moral argument Mike brings up and the concern over distribution in his post. One is difficult to understand at a theoretical level, the other an implementation issue that exists among many.

I just want to comment on the creative brilliance displayed in these chapters. I'm at the point where I can understand the arguments being made, delineating between good and bad ones, and ask (what I take to be) interesting questions. But the kind of work done here takes real creativity and ingenuity. I just don't know how one goes about developing expansive and creative plans of action.

The pharmaceutical proposal is cool. In essence, Pogge argues that we redistribute resources in such a fashion that those that develop drugs get paid based on the effect that drug has on the world. It can be given to others, sold cheaply, and corporations can make money while at the same being humanitarian. What would be an argument against his proposal? Surely there are a number of bureacratic/logistical issues with such a reorganization, and it would be difficult to get folks to sign on, but can someone with more knowledge of pharmaceutical companies explain what their objection would be?

There are a number of reasons in favor: Building good will among the developing nations, job creation, cheaper drugs for the rich. What little I know about patent law tells me that this would, even with positive consequences, be very difficult to maneuver. There are too many people with too much power that have many well-established legal avenues to respond. I'd really like to go over the details of the plan so we can see how he proves that its so widely in self-interest and maybe how that could be spun to get people on board.

I'd also just like to reiterate that many of the argumenets Pogge advances are similar to Shrader-Frechette, just more widespread. They cite the same justifications based on advantage gained through being a member of the social order. I also think its important to note that Pogge emphasizes his claim that many of these social conditions are man made. It isn't genetics or natural disaster; certain groups have been robbed, divided, pushed together, moved entirely, and its a miracle that, given those facts, some cultures have survived.

The End

I’m hoping we can spend some time on Thursday unpacking section 8.4 (the moral argument for the proposed reform). It is really dense to me right now, and I think I would understand it better if we worked through it in class.

I found it very interesting that, according to Pogge, we could stop world hunger if we all paid $0.07 more per gallon of gas (a figure that seems to me to be within the normal fluctuation of gas prices) for just a few years (211-212 in orange). I’ve always thought of world hunger as this massive problem (and, I think many of Pogge’s empirical claims support this type of thinking), but I think the major flaw in my thinking was falling into those traps that Pogge discussed at the beginning of the book—that the problem is so huge that no one knows where to start. It seems that this $0.07 increase (barring the massive problems that would probably come from implementation) would be a very good idea.

My major concern, then, lies in the disbursement of these funds. If we assume that we can raise the necessary funds for the GRD, how can we divvy them out in a way that is fair and just? Pogge seems to suggest that we should rely upon expert knowledge (he suggests that we would need to consult economists and international lawyers), and he argues that transparency would be important to make sure that the process is fair. However, in making policy in America, we often rely on expert knowledge, and it doesn’t always work out because the experts become politicized (see, for example, the economy right now in relation to the suggestions of economists). Thus, I’m concerned (and this may just be a pessimistic view) that nearly any attempt to divide up this money would lead to immense political bickering which would, in all likelihood, either reduce the effectiveness of the GRD or render it completely impotent because no one can agree on what to do with the money.

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

The final pages of Pogge

In the final chapter 8, Pogge explains the GRD and systematically explains his argument. His proposal involves the share and consideration of natural resources as global and belonging to mankind all together. Pogge further explains how developed countries have a negative duty towars the starving poor because it is their policies that bring them to poverty. Although it is easier to assume that poverty is created locally in those societies, Pogge advocates responsiblity and action to prevent it. "This illusion conceals how profoundly local factors and their effects are influenced by the existing golbal order...The affluent countries have been using their power to shape the rules of the world economy according to their own interests and thereby have deprived the poorest populations of a fair share of global economic growth" (200-201).
Simply, Pogge suggests that those who make more extensive use of the planet's resources should compensate those who do not do so involuntarily. He also speaks about morality and the possibility of morality's influence in global politics. This part of the arguement is aimed at a "softer" side of people, and perhaps some will be motivated to change because of moral beliefs. I also agree with Pogge about the importance of EU and US involvement in the potential GRD. Such large polities' exclusion would not bring about the necessary changes.

How can we, as individuals, make sure that poverty is reduced? Pogge advocates institutional reform, but if there are not enough supporters this plan will not succeed? What if the "poverty eradicators" stay a minority? Surely, there are individual acts that can help, but I don't believe that those would be enough to make a fundamental difference. Would our best approach lie in a joint effort of instiutional reform, as suggested by Pogge?

Picking apart Pogge

Indira talked a bit about the seemingly top-down approach Pogge has to achieving democracy. I can see where this perception comes from, but at the same time feel that Pogge’s conception of requirements for and characteristics of a democracy call for the people to be engaged at all levels. Like Dagger, he speaks of the responsibility of the persons represented by the democracy, once again the vigilant citizenry as it were. By his definition, an achieved democracy centers around the will of the people who have not only the information to make educated decisions but the independence to be freed of coercive influences.

I can appreciate the theory of and rhetoric behind the Democracy Panel and Democracy Fund, but even if I presuppose that Pogge’s conception of sovereignty from Chapter 7 has been realized, I’m skeptical of its practical application and effectiveness. Pogge argues that by having even one country implement this type of amendments that the rest of the world will be swayed by the “moral momentum” this action will accumulate.

Based on the limited success of other global organizations like the U.N. and its predecessor the League of Nations, I see the current tangle of international politics as too snarled to simplify into the kind of ideal Pogge projects. Even were the different countries to internalize Pogge’s views on sovereignty, I still don’t see many of them authorizing military intervention or calmly allowing their fate to be adjudicated by this international power. As much as democracy is supposed to be about freedom, governing is essentially about control.

As others have noted, I’m skeptical that the Democracy Fund will remain funded or that the proposal to undermine the lending capabilities of nations will gain much traction. The cynic in me agrees that to decrease the incentives of a hostile takeover it makes sense to start with the money. Admittedly, I know next to nothing about international finance, so my next few comments might sound startlingly naïve or even flat out ignorant, but here goes.

When thinking of hostile takeovers and the individuals who launch these coup d’etats, I never got the impression that a low credit limit or high interest rate would really deter them. If one is going to use military force to promote authoritarian rule, what are the odds that you are that concerned about raising capital, either instead of the loans or to pay them, according to the legal guidelines. Would this not just encourage the leaders of these takeovers to see more nefarious sources of revenue? Also, we in the United States have basically ignored our national debt for years without too much issue. What is to keep these newly authoritarian countries from accumulating the debt and then ignoring it, as we have?

I do confess that I found chapter 6 to be much more interesting and much more accessible. I am still not quite clear of the connection he is trying to make between cosmopolitanism and sovereignty, a dialogue I feel is at the core of understanding this text in general. I have an idea of the pairing, but am looking to the class to help clarify the specific outline of the structure for Pogge’s connection.

Pogge - Chapters 6 & 7

I found chapter 6 to be effective, in that, it ties together his previous arguments regarding a need for a sense of shared responsibility with practical aspects of achieving democracy. One of the questions that I had as I read Chapter 6 is why Pogge focuses on what rulers within nations should do when the first part of his argument focuses on the global order. Although, I do understand why he would want to do this, in part (i.e. because these nations are all a part of the global order and therefore affect it), I still wasn't quite sure as to why, if Pogge states that we cannot blame world poverty on the poor countries and their leaders, he would take a bottom-up approach, instead of a top-down approach dealing with institutions. This concern was alleviated a bit in Chapter 7 as he discusses sovereignty and a top-down approach, so the two approaches seem reasonable to me when juxtaposed. I still question, though, what chances exist of a state limiting its own power, even if it is only in instances when its democracy might be compromised?

Another interesting aspect of Chapter 6 is the part about "invalid" transactions (170). Pogge's argument resounds with me here because, using the U.S. as an example, business practices here seem to be concerned, at least in theory, with ethics and ethical transactions, yet we seem to conveniently forget or ignore such practice on a global scale. Although, I'm not quite able to imagine his idea of a Democracy Fund being very effective in practice. I also had other reservations with regard to his arguments regarding under-developed states focusing on what they can do to enhance the global order when the citizens within such states do not have basic human rights, such as food and sanitation.

Lastly, I was so glad that Pogge discussed sovereignty reform in Chapter 7, because my earlier post on Chapters 4 and 5 had hinted that sovereignty plays a large role in this problem. I was really impressed with Pogge's conception of a vertical "dispersal" of sovereignty (187). His merging of cosmopolitanism and sovereignty is brilliant! As I was reading this part, I couldn't help but think of this international government, to which we owe our allegiance to, as opposed to the state governments that monopolize our current system. I can see many difficulties with this vertical approach, but I love the idea. If we shared this sense of a global community, perhaps our approach to human rights and social justice would be more effective and more in line with our notions of morality.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Pogge

Throughout chapter six, Pogge starts to make his case for showing that the affluent democracies of the world are to blame for the unlevel playing to field. On pages 154 – 155, he establishes three considerations that a fledgling democracy should take into consideration and these three play a prominent role when evaluating how his theory fits together. He then goes through and examines a number of ways by which a fledging democratic government could establish as deterrent effects. In 6.2 part of his suggestion would be for the government to come to an agreement, prior to that of a coup, preauthorizing military intervention. In 6.3 he puts forth as part of his theory that debt should not carry over after an undemocratic ruling. And that this is part of the problem, if not a major part of the problem, because countries are held responsible for the debt their unjust predecessors accumulated. The idea of “the Democracy Panel” whose job it would be to monitor elections and monitor constitutions. And the monitoring of this panel would only be that of broad democratic constitutions. A problem arises concerning who will fund this panel and universal Democratic Fund. Much of the financial support would ultimately rests on riches and most powerful countries. It seems like a lot of his theory involves deterrent implications on the fledging democratic states. One problem I am having trouble with is how is this connecting with his problem of world poverty? Is it by promoting democracy worldwide, it would reduce war and decrease human rights problems such as poverty?

Would any of this lead us toward the idea of a one world government (considering his suggestions about a “Democracy Panel” and a world police)? Would a one world government, if plausible, be a better solution to the problem? It may be a bit theoretical, but I personally think it may be a better solution to the problem, if it is even plausible; but I think that if democracy could be established independently among every country, then this wouldn’t be too far of a stretch.

Pogge 6-7

I think Pogge's chapter 6 and prompted the following two thoughts when I read it.
First-a brief tangent. Pogge states on page 152 "Democracy involves voting--on political issues or on candidates for political offices--in accordance with the general idea of one-person-one-vote." (Pogge 152) After taking a class regarding Supreme Courts and election law last semester, though, this assertion seems controversial. That is because strict adherence to one-person-one-vote as the fundamental aspect of voting is an American ideal, but an international interpretation of democracy (at least that of Canada and Great Britain, among others) believes voting must only lead to effective representation. Although Pogge talks about other aspects of democracy, such as shielding the public from unmonitored coercion, I felt compelled to comment on this subject. Tangent over.
My second point is that, while Pogge addresses voting in the above statement, he fails to link voting as an aspect of stability. In my comparative politics course with Professor Williams, we discussed the idea that, statistically, countries able to hold three democratic elections (even if limited cheating is involved) are vastly more stable in the long-run compared to democracies unable to hold three consecutive elections. A major premise, then, is that our aid to developing democracies should be focused to the election infrastructure rather than making government infrastructures dependent on developed democracies. I believe that Pogge, if introduced to the statistical data behind these findings, would consider this another potentially viable solution.

Pogge-Chpters 6&7

I really enjoyed Pogge's discussion of democracy and its components, as well as the process by which it was possible to achieve it. He expected that his example of kidnapping and overtake of government would be a good parallel, and it was. It helped me better understand the difficulties of punishing after democratic order is restored. Also, I wanted to comment on his definition of democracy, because it brought a different idea for me. At the beggining of ch. 6 he writes that democracy should make voters "safe from extreme economic need and from arbitrary physical violence and pshychological duress, any of which might make them excessively dependant on each other". This part of the definition is not one commonly known; most times one will only hear the basic definition involving voting and representation. This is a nice addition to his overall idea, and how people need to be politically free, as well as independant to thrive.
In his discussion of the Democracy Panel, he speaks of the influence this panel may have in keeping coups away from taking over fledging democracies. Pogge thinks that an organization like the UN should be in charge of this panel, but I could not help but wonder about enforcement. This panel would have the power to determine whether the countries were under take over, and lending issues, but how would they enforce their desicions?
*Democracy involves the fulfillment not only of important rights, but also of important responsibilities of citizens. (166)
Prior to this he writes about the lack of involvement and awareness in affluent countries as well as developing ones. People are not well informed about foreign policies and international practices that their governments practice in their name. This reminds me a bit of Dagger, and his call for greater involvmenet and community. It is easy to ignore international happenings when one is preocuppied at home, yet those practices might lead to real suffering worldwide.

"Dispersing political authority over nested territorial units would decrease the intensity of the struggle for power and wealth within and among states, thereby reducing the incidence of war, poverty and oppression...borders can be redrawn more easily to accord with the aspirations of peoples and communities" (168-169).
This is quite intriguing to me, but I am not sure how feasible it would be. Through colonization and several world conflicts borders have been drawn in countries, languages changed and customes ignored. The west is largerly to blame for the suffering of developing nations because of its beliefs of superiority.

I wish he would have spent a litte more time writing about opression in 7.3.3. I agree with his suggestion of a multi-branch government, but a country that is facing serious problems as he mentioned might have a difficult time achieving this. Perhaps these countries would need an international forace that is non partisan, but this would infringe on their sovereignty.I hope we talk a little more about this in class.
Also, I hope we get to spend some time talking about the changes and shaping of political units.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Pogge on Democracy and Sovereignty

I’m hoping we can spend some class time on Tuesday unpacking the implications of Pogge’s proposed reconceptualization of sovereignty. I’m intrigued by the numerous consequences that it could have for international relations (a field of study that is almost completely dependent upon the idea of a system of sovereign territorial nation-states as a fundamental unit of analysis) as well as the fact that Pogge’s system seems to give almost total authority to citizens since they have the authority to realign themselves with a (super)majority vote. However, I’m left wondering if such a system could be viable in a place that does not have free and participatory elections; how would the people choose to realign themselves if they are not fee to vote as they please without fear of retaliation by the current government or regime?

Looking at chapter 6, I’m interested in spending time on the following statement of Pogge’s: “To the extent that citizens abandon their responsibility to control the power that is excercised in their name, their country is less than democratic” (172 in orange book; second-to-last paragraph in 6.4). With this said, it seems to me that Pogge would not classify the United States as a democracy because a vast segment of U.S. citizens do not exercise their “responsibility” (I think Pogge’s use of “responsibility” is also very telling) to control power through active participation in politics and government. With that said, I think this is another place where a conversation between Dagger and Pogge would be particularly fruitful and interesting. Both authors stress the importance of active and informed political participation (Pogge, it seems, now even goes so far to claim that a refusal to participate actively in democracy—to change flawed processes—implicates one in the violation of human rights even of individuals in other countries), yet Pogge specifically rejects much of the communitarian aspects (see his refutation of Walzer in 7) that Dagger depends upon. As such, I’m wondering what such a conversation would produce.