Volume LVII, No 8
April, 2004
Global Economy Doing Justice to Development
Johannes Wallacher
IN THIS ISSUE
German scholar on ethics in economics and the social sciences Johannes Wallacher analyzes the ethical dimensions of development issues in the light of the globalization of the world's economy. After an overview of world economic integration, he develops ethical criteria for just development and concludes by suggesting ways of implementing a more just world order.
The intensification and acceleration of global economic integration has triggered an intensive debate on the global economy and its role in welfare accumulation and poverty reduction. On the one hand, openness to world economy is viewed as a driving force for economic development, because it leads to increased competition. On the other hand, the interconnection with international flows of goods and capital produces substantial risks as the numerous financial and currency crises over recent years have demonstrated.
Due to these highly ambivalent effects, global economic integration is not an end in itself, but the whole process, its degree and pace has to be evaluated. From an ethical perspective, this involves two aspects: Firstly, to formulate a domestic development strategy as a precondition for a country to do well in the process of globalization. This is very important because the impact of the world economy on a country`s economy and thus on the living standard of its population does depend strongly on the national policy in question (Rodrik 1999). Secondly, there is an additional need to structure global economic competition in order to give all players the opportunity to reap the potential benefits of economic globalization and to reduce the risks involved (Todaro 2000).
Starting from this intention this paper outlines at first some basic and empirical aspects on the interrelation of economic growth and inequality (part 1) before proceeding to introduce ethical standards (part 2) and levels of responsibility (part 3) in order to implement a world economic order fitting a just development.
1 World Economy Between Growth and Inequality
1.1 Elementary Considerations The process of global economic integration not only causes a higher and broader offering of goods, but also brings about an increased productivity, at least theoretically. The enlargement of markets beyond national borders facilitates a higher degree of specialization and reduces the cost of production. This had already been realized by Adam Smith in his famous "Wealth of Nations" from 1776. The international division of labor should principally be based on comparative advantages. Traced back to David Ricardo (1772-1823) this is still the basic principle of international trade. According to this, cross-border exchange of goods and services is a source of potential benefits for all participating countries if all national economies specialize in the export of the products that they can produce at the lowest relative cost. These comparative advantages are the reason for the fact that all countries, also the least developed, can benefit from international trade, in theory.
The pursuit of higher efficiency and productivity are without doubt an essential foundation of the market economy`s capacity. But this perspective includes only the growth of aggregated welfare and neglects the distribution of income or chances of participation. The Pareto-principle as the welfare-measure in contemporary economic theory clearly reveals the priority of efficiency against inequality. According to this principle, a collective maximum of welfare is reached at a point where any change will cause a loss in individual welfare for at least one actor. The question who is going to benefit from economic exchange is as much disregarded as the possible concern that the poor or economically weaker countries should benefit disproportionately more from growth than the well-off population or the well-off economies.
Pareto`s methodological position is one in favor of an absolutely formal and positive theory with the aim of purging economics of all ethical elements. However, this concept is full of underlying (and implicit) normative postulates (Sturn et al. 2002). There is, first, an individualistic comprehension of welfare. An upgrade in collective welfare involves a higher utility for at least one individual without worsening somebody else`s situation. Thus, this principle is resistant to changing the status quo because of everybody`s power of veto. Then this principle disregards the initial inequality of opportunities or capabilities in (global) economic competition. All together, this eliminates any possibility to challenge a given distribution (of incomes or other assets) from a normative point of view such as the Rawlsian leximin principle. After all, legitimacy is cut down to strategic efficiency (Ulrich 1998, 191-194).
Most economists would reject a trade-off between economic efficiency and inequality. They usually assume that the benefits of economic growth trickles down to the economically weaker and the poor, at least in the longer term. Higher growth would increase the scope for public redistributive policies (via taxes or transfers). This argument is not simply (basically) wrong, but economic growth is just a necessary and not a sufficient precondition for sustainable poverty reduction.
Thus, there is a controversial debate in recent policy and research documents on the term of pro-poor-growth (Worldbank 2000). However, the underlying concept continues to be vague. These documents usually imply that pro-poor-growth is growth that benefits the poor and enables them to better economic opportunities.
Stephan Klasen (2003) structures the recent debate on this issue (in a highly recommendable paper "In Search of the Holy Grail: How to Achieve Pro-Poor-Growth?") and suggests four desirable requirements of a definition:
1.This "should clearly differentiate between pro-poor-growth and other types of economic growth while at the same time indicate the amount of pro-poor-growth."
2.This concept "must at least imply that the poor have benefited disproportionately more from growth than the non-poor."
3. The "assessment should be sensitive to the distribution of incomes among the poor in the sense of giving greater weight to the poorest of the poor."
4. Finally, while giving more weight to the poor, the measure must not disregard "an overall assessment of [a country's] economic performance."
Klasen suggests a simple measure that would fit all these requirements: the population and poverty-weighted growth rates. This is an arithmetic average of growth rates of different income groups (e.g. deciles or quintiles). The deciles, for example, indicate the income of the 10%, 20% , etc. poorest proportion of the population. This measure gives more implicit weight to the absolute income growth of the poor than the average income growth rate which is more dependent on income growth rates of the richer population.
It goes without saying that such a comprehension of pro-poor-growth has far-reaching normative implications. Thus, it has to be justified. Before I proceed to suggest ethical reasons for such a concept — as one central element of a global economy doing justice to development — I would like to continue with some brief remarks on worldwide income disparities.
1.2 Global Income Gap Recent years have seen a multitude of empirical studies on the global income gap which differ partially according to database and underlying methods. I do not want to go into further details, but to sketch some general trends which are more or less undisputable. In doing so, I will focus on the income dimension of poverty1. A common measure for the income is the average per capita GNP (on the basis of Purchasing Power Parity).
One important feature of the global economy is a distinct income gap between North and South as well as between West and East. The average per capita GNP (on the basis of Purchase Power Parity) in high-income economies in 2001 was 24-times higher than in low-income countries (Worldbank 2003).
Over the last decades worldwide disparities have changed inconsistently (Lorenz 2003). The income gap between the richest and the poorest 10 % of the world population has increased considerably and between the richest and the poorest 20 % proportion of the world population has moderately been deepened. Whereas the income disparities between the richest and poorest 33% and between the richest and poorest 50% has decreased.
This means that, in particular, the disparities at the margins of the income distribution have been amplified. There is a similar trend on the country basis. In their totality, the developing countries have been able to realize slightly higher economic growth rates compared to the developed countries. The group of least developed countries and most of the countries with economies in transition (former Soviet-countries), however, had significant lower economic growth rates.
The impact of the process of economic globalization is ambivalent as some of its mechanisms provide opportunities for economic convergence, whereas others reinforce the risk of deepening global disparities. The ongoing liberalisation of markets has increased aggregated global welfare evidently. However, the gains are distributed most unequally. This is evident in the regional imbalances of globalization, in particular. While East and South East Asian countries had surpassing growth rates in the last 25 years, Latin America and the Middle East had below average growth rates. In Africa and the majority of the former Soviet Republics the per capita GNP has decreased.
However, this regional view should not hide the inequality within the countries. Thus, it may be useful to point to some of the most important linkages between economic growth, inequality and poverty. Recent studies on this topic come to the following conclusions (with reference to Klasen 2003, 5-12):
• Sustained economic growth, on average, reduces poverty.
• Empirical evidence, however, suggests that inequality has remained fairly stable across most countries. Prominent exceptions are the US, the UK and the transition countries where inequality has expanded significantly. This at least means that the poor could not benefit disproportionately from economic growth.
• The poverty impact of economic growth is negatively correlated with growing income inequality.
• Moreover, there is some empirical evidence for the fact that economies with lower initial income or asset inequality are able to achieve higher succeeding economic growth. They also seem to be more capable of managing external shocks resulting from global economic integration.
• An additional factor seems to be gender inequality as women usually allocate more resources to food, health care and education of their children than men do.
• Given these results, there is a triple poverty pay-off to diminishing the initial inequality, particularly with regard to gender inequality: This strengthens the chance 1. to reduce poverty directly, 2. to augment growth and 3. to boost the poverty impact of economic growth.
These empirical results confirm to some extent the fundamental considerations that economic efficiency should not be separated from the (initial) distribution of income and other assets, or economic opportunities in general. Moreover, decreasing inequality and economic growth are not only non-competing, but at least partially mutually reinforcing goals.
2 Ethical Criteria for a World Economy Fitting a Just Development
2.1 Moral Point of View as Origin An ethical evaluation of the global economy depends on a moral point of view (Wallacher 2002). In a plural world, there is a need of a broad and inter-cultural consensus on such a moral point of view. The easiest way to come to such an accord is probably by starting with joint human experiences of suffering and injustice, such as hunger, poverty, or discrimination. These experiences are previous to all reasoning, widely independent of cultural interpretation, and call for overcoming or at least for a plausible explanation. Human vulnerability can be seen as the anthropological root of morality. Even human rights can be interpreted as responses to collective human suffering and therefore be conceived as imperatives in the sense of a "Not like that!" without tracing back to specific philosophical or religious traditions.
Ethics, however, asks for more than the spontaneous and instinctive rejection of human suffering. In addition, it demands for a critical reasoning and a conscious responsibility. A linkage is possible on the basis of the "normative logic of human reciprocity", as it is introduced by Peter Ulrich (1998, 44-49) in three further steps:
1) The point of origin is the principle of the imagined reversal of positions which can be traced back to Adam Smith. Human ability to put oneself in one's fellow human's place can be seen as "cognitive root of morality". This capability allows us to sympathise with the affects of the others and to reflect our own behavior from their point of view.
2) This imagined reversal of positions is the base for the principle of reciprocity of legitimate claims and rights. This is also the essence of the Golden Rule which is known and accepted in all cultural traditions. The principle of reciprocity denotes that my moral right is inseparably connected with the fellow human's duty to keep this right, and vice versa.
3) The imagined reversal of positions is finally broadened to a universal concept which transfers the idea of reciprocity of moral rights and duties from the "face-to-face-" to a "global-relationship." In the era of globalization this abstraction is facilitated by world-wide mass media and electronic online networks which through their pictures or reports throw a glance at hunger, poverty, or injustice.
Starting from this formal principle of universal reciprocity of interpersonal rights and duties, moral norms and values can be deduced. This is first of all the fundamental norm of reciprocal recognition of human dignity.
2.2 Specific Understanding of Justice and Development Evaluative ideas in terms of economy or economic order usually make use of notions of justice. However, a remaining fundamental problem is that there is hardly a consensus on justice, particularly in debating concrete policy measures. With regard to a world economic order there has to be a universal understanding of justice.
A possible way to come to such a consensus is not to define justice positively but to identify evident injustice. This avoids coming to a conclusion about which distribution of income or goods is just or unjust. But _ on the basis of the above moral point of view _ a reasoned consensus is possible that a society or economic order that tolerates famine, extreme poverty or obvious discrimination is unjust when prevention or overcoming is possible.
This awareness of justice is closely associated with the concept of development, if development is not simply identified with growth of Gross National Product (GNP) or income _ as the economists usually do _ but seen as removal of major sources of suffering or injustice. This is very similar to Amartya Sen`s (1999) approach of „development as freedom" which points out some further and helpful perspectives. Sens`s comprehension of development is also based on obvious sources of unfreedom and injustice and aims at expanding human freedom in its complementary and interconnected dimensions. Poverty not only means a lack of material income, but is usually linked with inadequate opportunities to develop and with a wide range of forms of social exclusion. The majority of the poor are not only excluded from social safety nets and fundamental social services, such as basic education and basic health care, but also hardly have access to formal markets. In addition, they barely enjoy essential democratic and political rights, as the poor have no access to lawyers, judges or democratic decisions.
Following this wider comprehension of development the primary goal of an economic order on the national as well as on the global level is to overcome obvious injustice and to enhance the economic, social and political opportunities of the poor and economically weak in national economies and the developing countries, especially the least developed countries (LLDC), in the world economy. This must be the core of a global economic world order so as to do justice to development.
2.3 Ethical Standards and Points of Action Orientation This understanding of justice as a prerequisite for just development involves several ethical standards and points of orientation for action with regard to the process of societal development as well as to developmental opportunities of countries in the global economy. Based on the above comprehension of development we can review several principles of justice which can be deduced from the idea of justice. Their connecting focus is enabling or capability (Sen 1999).
1) Justice based on needs In this concept, first of all, the standard of justice based on needs comes to the fore. Priority attention must therefore be given to those who are unable even to meet their basic needs.This is founded in human dignity given to all humans without prejudice and in the same manner. It forms also the basis of human rights, which not only includes the civil and political rights ( U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966), but also economic, social and cultural rights (U.N. Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from 1966). The logic of this approach lies in an option for those who are excluded from these rights ("option for the poor") which also gives reasons for the above introduced concept of "pro-poor-growth" (1.1).
This has far-reaching consequences. All politics at national and international levels must therefore be evaluated on their impact on the poor. The standard of justice based on needs, for example, legitimates exemptive provisions for developing countries (LLCD) in current world trade order. This is an expression of the recognition of the fact that one country or certain groups of countries could be more seriously harmed if all were equally and simultaneously subjected to certain rules. The extension of the exemption provisions seems to be particularly necessary in the case of the Agreement on Agriculture and the agreement on Trade Related Measures on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The Agreement on Agriculture, for example, should be amended by the addition of provisions which provide countries with the opportunity to impose trade restrictions or to limit contractual concessions when this is necessary in order to guarantee the provision of adequate food. Proposals have already been put forward by developing countries and NGO's as far as the design of such an exemption box _ often also called "bread box" or "rice box" _ is concerned.
2) Subsidiarity The consequence of the previous reflections is that humankind is the starting point and the aim of all development. This requires a development from scratch. This is the point of the principle of subsidiarity, which protects individuals and lower social levels (families, local authorities, civil society players, etc.) from the all-pervasive power of the state and bureaucratic centralism. Conversely, this principle also requires, if necessary, support from the superior levels. This also applies in forming a global economic order. Such an order must, on the one hand, grant adequate scope for self-determined development and, on the other hand, provide help for self-help and encourage and strengthen the economic capacity of these countries.
3) Justice based on opportunities for participation Higher economic capacity evidently depends on better opportunities and capabilities in order to improve economic chances. Thus, the principle of justice based on opportunities or participation is crucial. As such, it requires on the national level personal and social investments in people, their abilities and their environment in order to create human and social capital. With regard to global economy it is not primarily a matter of "handing over some prosperity" to the poorer countries, but of creating a world economic order which gives all concerned fair and to some extent equal opportunities. This legitimises the extension of special provisions for developing countries in the WTO-agreement _ the so-called Special and Differential Treatments (SDT). In order to encourage economic development of rural areas where most of the extreme poor live, it would be for example necessary to allow specific support for small farmers.
The principle of justice based on opportunities is closely linked with other material and procedural criteria. Strengthening the role of women (empowerment of women) by means of education and more legal certainty is of great importance for a comprehensive and self-determined human development. Women usually allocate more of their resources to basic social services, but continue to be largely excluded from those decision-making processes which directly affect them. This is also a grave violation of the principle of justice based on gender equality. Moreover, economic chances especially depend on procedural aspects. The developing countries find themselves more or less in an unfavorable negotiating position in the consultative process on the global level, such as the WTO-consultation. Lack of expertise and experience on the part of many delegations from developing countries in connection with undisclosed negotiation processes often result in consultations being controlled by informal agreements reached between the delegations of stronger countries. This is an evident violation of the principle of justice based on fair procedures and calls for procedural reforms and for consultancy services (capacity building) for developing countries in order to secure and advance their negotiating power in the decision-making process.
After all, market restrictions imposed by industrial countries _ e.g. in the agriculture and textile sectors _ in which developing countries enjoy particular comparative cost advantages contravene both the principle of justice based on opportunity as well as the principle of justice based on equal exchange. Export subsidies paid by industrial countries with their destructive impact on local markets in developing countries are another case of grave violation of these principles. They are essentially nothing more than the protection of vested interests in the rich countries at the expense of the poorer ones.
4) Inter-generational justice The standard of justice, however, has not only a spatial, but also a temporal dimension, namely the criteria of inter-generational justice which encompasses history as well as future. On the one hand, the victims of the past must not be forgotten. Thus, a global economic order fitting a just development can also be seen as compensation for the injustice that had been done by the industrial countries in times of colonisation. On the other hand, the opportunities of future generations have to be considered. The high consumption of natural resources in industrial countries and the resulting pollution, as well as the environmental degradation caused by poverty in developing and emerging countries, endanger the natural basis of life. The principle of inter-generational justice fundamentally claims that the present economic and social problems must not reduce the options for future generations. This forms the basis of the concept of sustainable development which the world economic order is also obliged to observe.
3 Levels of Ethical Reasoning
3.1 Broad Foundation of Responsibility
An ethics of a global economy doing justice to development not only needs standards as to contents, but also adequate principles for implementing such a world economic order. These have to consider the far-reaching structural changes of international politics which result from the various processes of globalization with all their ambiguous effects. This includes, first, the modified reach of classical nation-state policy and the increasing differentiation of political levels. Then there has to be taken into account that in addition to institutions on the local (municipalities), the national, the regional (e.g. EU and other regional integration projects) or global level (e.g. UN and various supranational organisations and regimes) new non-state actors, in particular, transnational corporations and the international civil society gain an increasing influence on global politics.
This calls for new and more flexible forms of political governance in order to shape economic competition on the national as well as the global level. In this context, various concepts of Global Governance" are currently under discussion (e.g., Messner/Nuscheler 2003). This does not mean a hierarchical governance of the global society in the sense of a "Global Government" nor just an aggregation of the nation-states activities, but a joint political process of split sovereignties at various levels of action and the involvement of non-state players. Following the principle of subsidiarity, the authority of decision making has to be assigned to the competent level of action.
Such a concept of political governance depends on a broad and graded foundation of responsibility, if single (individual) actors are not to be hopelessly overburdened. Supporting pillars of such a "Global-Governance-Architecture" are still nation-states governments and their various patterns of cooperation in supranational institutions and international regimes. They are mainly in charge of implementing a global economic order fitting a just development. Due to the given complex global challenges they are basically swamped with shaping a global order. They rely on the support of other individual and collective global players which have also to accept responsibility according to their power and influence.
In this context, three levels of action can be distinguished: the individual, the organizational and the systemic. The willingness of individuals to take responsibility for their economic choices as consumers, investors or managers and _ even more important _ to support indispensable structural political reforms, is still fundamental. Important collective global players are the transnational enterprises which act more and more independently from national politics and, thus, gain an increasing influence on the world economy and global politics. They have to accept responsibility on two levels:
1) On the one hand, their joint political responsibility in shaping an adequate economic order on the national and international level.
2) On the other hand, their „Corporate Social Responsibility" within the given, necessarily uncompleted, economic order. These "voluntary" codes of conduct can have a stimulating effect for the binding implementation of internationally-accepted social and ecological standards. However, these "voluntary" codes of conduct can only claim credibility when external control and monitoring regimes based on objective and transparent criteria are installed.
In this context, international civil society (international networks of NGO's and new social movements like ATTAC) have an important role to play. Through their constructive forms of political commitment they build new control and sanctioning mechanisms, and thus they are able to point out opportunities to overcome the dilemmas of state and market failure.
3.2 Levels of Action
Self-Responsibility of Developing Countries The main responsibility for contributing to defeating poverty and underdevelopment through sound economic and social policy lies with the individual countries themselves. Only they are able, ultimately, to create the preconditions for successful participation in the global economy (Rodrik 1999). This calls for far-reaching structural-reforms in nearly all countries in the South and the East.
First of all, the shaping of an economic framework in order to tighten the efficiency of economic competition is of great importance. This includes, measures to control monopolies, to establish legal security and safeguard property rights. Furthermore, a key role is played by the creation of stable national financial systems and internal economic stability through the independence of monetary institutions, strict bank supervision, fighting against inflation and budget discipline.
These policy measures, however important they are, are not sufficient to overcome poverty and the problem of unequal opportunities. In addition, a framework is essential in order to improve the economic opportunities and capabilities of the poor. Here, economic and social policy are closely interconnected and linked to one another. The poor and economically weak depend on improved access to institutions which meet their specific need, beginning with medical care and education, simple financial services (saving opportunities, loans, insurance) up to legal advice, political participation rights and a minimum of social safety nets. Conversely, economic policies have to be shaped into social form so that they are likely to promote high and pro poor economic growth (Klasen 2003). There is now a common accord that macroeconomic stability is a precondition for pro-poor-growth because high inflation rates are a heavy burden for the poor. Considerable significance is also attached to reducing inequalities in the distribution of income and assets (especially land) through land reforms and a fair and transparent tax legislation. Moreover, there is a need for adequate policy measures to promote growth in areas and economic sectors which are particularly important for the poor. This is particularly the labor-intensive production in agriculture _ the vast majority of the poor live in rural areas and depend directly or indirectly on agriculture _ and the labor-intensive production in small and medium-sized manufacturing.
Unfortunately, however, these policies to promote the poor's economic opportunities will not help the very poorest. Thus, combatting extreme poverty remains a primary task of development policy. The poorest need direct support so that they can gradually gain a position in which they are able to unfold their productive potential and to benefit from economic exchange.
Reform of the Global Economic Order Even if the basis for sound economic development has to be established in the country itself, we should not overlook the fact, that, today, the effectiveness of national policy measures is limited. For this reason, there is an additional need to shape global economic competition in order to improve the economic opportunities of the developing countries. The enhancement of the present world trade and financial order, in particular, has to take into account the specific interests of the poor countries. Some relevant aspects have already been mentioned in the discussion of the ethical standards in part 2.3.
At the international level, development aid can never replace the individual efforts of the developing countries, but may in a useful way supplement them. Especially the least developing countries will need to remain on public development aid for the foreseeable future, if they are to overcome poverty. International development targets like cutting extreme poverty in half by 2015 can only reasonably be realized, if the poor countries receive substantially more aid. Since the reduction of the financial means available for development aid can probably only be reversed with difficulty, this public aid should largely be reserved for the least developed countries in the future, since they have hardly any access to private capital. This aid should above all be provided in the form of grants to avoid the accumulation of further debt and a consequent increase in debt service. External aid should, however, be tied to a country's willingness to ensure that these resources are used to effectively combat poverty and, at the time, to strengthen the capacities for a self-supporting development by undertaking appropriate political and administrative reforms.
Co-Responsibility of the Industrial Countries Due to their political, economic and socio-cultural dominance, the industrial countries especially account for a world economic order doing justice to development. Reforms of the world economy are mainly dependent on structural adjustments within the developed countries. The required measures are widely recognized:
- reasonable balance of trade and balance of payments;
- opening markets for exports from developing countries, particularly in the agricultural field;
- preferential treatments of the Least Developed Countries through preferential customs rates and similar arrangements;
- cutting one's own trade-related subsidies;
- stabilizing international currency relations and global financial markets;
- far-reaching debt-relief;
- strengthening participation rights in supranational organisations, etc.
Due to their by far too disproportionate consumption of natural resources and the resulting pollution, the industrial countries also bear a particular responsibility for a global environmental policy aimed at sustainable development. This calls for a model of civilization which can be promoted globally. This is in line with the long-term self-interest of the industrialized countries themselves, but is also an indispensable precondition for a global order fitting a just development because it has a major impact on future development opportunities in the South and East. The dynamic of markets and competition is without doubt an important means for technological innovations in order to use natural resources more efficiently. But, the aim of a sustainable economy cannot be realized without a fundamental process of socio-ecological, structural adjustments which in turn calls for deep changes in the awareness of the problems involved.
The extensive structural changes that are needed to implement a global economic order doing justice to development encounter immense difficulties, in the developed as well as in the developing countries. The required reforms have far-reaching consequences because they bother and challenge hardened individual and collective self-interests and distributions of power.
However, due to the various mutual linkages the alternative for the world society seems to be obvious:
- a fiercer global distribution conflict between North and South with hardly foreseeable consequences or
- an intensified cooperation in order to combat global problems.
There is at least a room for hope that the negative repercussions of the global challenges which can be seen worldwide will increase the awareness of the fact that there will be definitely only common winners or losers in the long run. This is an important precondition, but by no means a guarantee for the indispensable reforms.
References
Klasen, S., In Search of The Holy Grail: How to Achieve Pro-Poor-Growth?, Munich 2003 http://www.vwl.uni-muenchen.de/ls_empwi/Personen/klasen/klasen.htm#Working Papers
Lorenz, A, Die globale personelle Ungleichverteilung: Eine wachsende Kluft zwischen Arm und Reich?, in: Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. v. (Hrsg.), Globalisierungsdebatte II: Positionen und Gegenpositionen, Zukunftsforum Politik Nr. 54, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Sankt Augustin 2003, 32-46.
Messner, D./Nuscheler, F., Das Konzept Global Governance. Stand und Perspektiven, Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden der Gerhard-Mercator-Universität Duisburg, Heft 67, Duisburg 2003.
Rodrik, D., The New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work, Washington D.C. 1999.
Sen, A., Development as Freedom, New York 1999.
Sturn, R./Held, M./Kubon-Gilke, G., Unproblematische Effizienz und problematische Gerechtigkeit? Dimensionen eines Trade-offs besonderer Art, in: Held, M./Kubon-Gilke, G./Sturn, R. (Hrsg.), Normative und institutionelle Grundfragen der Ökonomik, Marburg 2002, 11-49.
Todaro. M.P., Economic Development, 7th edition, London 2000.
Ulrich, P., Integrative Wirtschaftsethik. Grundlagen einer lebensdienlichen Ökonomie, 2nd edition, Bern 1998.
Wallacher, J, Wirtschaftsethik, in: Stimmen der Zeit 220 (2002), Nr. 4, 232-244.
Worldbank, World Development Reports, New York 2000 & 2003
Endnote
1 While many recent studies have emphasized the multidimensionality of poverty — and highlighted the importance of health, education, and gender equity — there are no corresponding indicators that have been proposed in capturing pro-poor growth in this wider dimension. Fortunately, there are causal linkages (with causality running both ways) between income poverty and other non-income measures of well-being
About the Author
Dr. Johannes Wallacher is Lecturer for Ethics in Economics and Social Sciences at the Institute for Social and Development Studies, Munich School of Philosophy. He is a member of the group of experts on world economy and social ethics for the German Catholic bishops' conference. He also is an advisor on the working group on political control of economic globalization of the German commission Justitia Pax.
This invited paper was delivered at the August 20-24, 2003 annual conference of the Societas Ethica on "Economics, Justice, and Welfare," at Sigtunastiftelsen & Ansgarslidend. He can be contacted at Kaulbachstr. 31a, D-80539 München, Germany, Email: joh.wallacher@hfph.mwn.de.
