Global distributive justice. Milanovic, “Global inequality and its implications” Lectures 10-12. Rodrik’s trilema. Economic integration. National sovereignty. Welfare state. • If sovereignty and welfare state (like now), no integration
Milanovic, “Global inequality and its implications”
• If sovereignty and welfare state (like now), no integration
• If integration and sovereignty, reduce spending and cut welfare state
• If welfare state and integration, global organizations to decide on policies (thus no national sovereignty)
Transfers only from well-ordered to “burdened” peoples
In all cases (except natural aristocracy) everyone has formally the same rightsa (so the first principle ofr justice is satisfied)
Go back to our definition of global inequality there is no reason to hope for convergence in living standards—the absence oif convergence is not a defect awaiting correction” (Joshua Cohen)
Rawls would insist of the minimization of each individual Gini (Gi) so that Term 1 (within-inequality) would be minimized. But differences in mean incomes between the countries can take any value. Term 2 (between inequality) could be very high.
And this is exactly what we observe in real life:
* China is at the median (unweighted) world income
Composition of global inequality changed: from being mostly due to “class” (within-national), today it is mostly due to “location” (where people live; between-national)
Source: Bourguignon and Morrisson (2002) and Milanovic (2005)
Based on slides provided by D. Rosenblatt.
PPP values versus dollars.
-Former implies non-zero sum redistribution.
-Tried various approaches.