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
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
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)
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.