POLI 219: Global Equality, For and Against Fall 2013

POLI 219: Global Equality, For and Against Fall 2013 Instructor: David Wiens Office: SSB 323 Office Hours: W 13:30 15:30 or by appt Email: dwiens@ucsd.edu Web: www.dwiens.com Course Description How far do liberal egalitarian principles of socioeconomic justice extend? Do they apply globally or only within the context of smaller political communities (e.g., the state, the nation, ethnic or religious communities)? We will survey recent attempts to answer this question, paying close attention to the justification, content, scope, and application of the proposed principles of justice. Our inquiry will be framed by several broad questions: What are the fundamental moral and social values grounding the proposed principles? How are the proposed principles justified? How should political power and authority be arranged in a just institutional scheme? (What place should the sovereign state occupy in a just institutional scheme?) What are the practical implications of designing institutions to satisfy the proposed principles? We will also pay close attention to methodological issues: What role do empirical facts play in specifying the proposed principles? How well do the proposed principles square with our best theories of political and economic development and of international organization? Texts Available electronically from UCSD library; Available as hard copy from UCSD library 1. Pablo Gilabert, From Global Poverty to Global Equality (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) 2. Aaron James, Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) 3. David Miller, National Responsibility and Global Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007) 4. Richard W. Miller, Globalizing Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) 5. Darrel Moellendorf, Cosmopolitan Justice (Boulder: Westview Press, 2002) 6. Mathias Risse, On Global Justice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012) 7. Laura Valentini, Justice in a Globalized World: A Normative Framework (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) 8. Lea Ypi, Global Justice & Avant-Garde Political Agency (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) 1

Assignments Paper stubs: 4 500 750 words Critical review: 1500 2000 words Research paper: 6000 7500 words 10% each (best 3 count; due 1 day after reading) 20% (due 2 days after reading) 50% (to be presented in final weeks) Expectations 1. Readings. Everyone will be responsible for the required reading plus one recommended reading. We will try to allocate responsibility for the week s recommended readings so that everything gets covered. You will not be expected to absorb every detail of the reading, so do not read every word. Your responsibility is to read enough to be able to answer the questions in the course description and to have a decent grip on the argument s overall structure. ( readings lengthy ones in particular should be skimmed. We will likely pare down the list of recommended readings as we go along.) The readings are meant to give you a sense of the current debate but, ultimately, to stimulate your own thoughts about how you might contribute to an ongoing debate. Your primary aim should be finding something worthwhile to say when it comes time to write (see next item). 2. Assignments. One key objective this term is to help you think largely in terms of scholarship production rather than merely consumption. Think of yourselves as apprentice scholars. This means (among other things) developing a habit of writing frequently. The writing assignments are designed to facilitate your transition to scholarship production. You should be thinking in terms of research outputs: conference papers, publications, etc. The paper stubs are meant to give you a folder full of abstracts that you can later use as a basis for conference or workshop papers, perhaps a publication. The critical review can serve as a basis for a longer research article or be written as a self-contained book review or research note. The research paper is meant to be a first draft of a journal article ideally, something you could reasonably turn into a publication. (I ll provide examples of paper stubs and critical reviews by the end of the first week of class.) 3. Works in progress. Although you should look for ways to turn your written work into future research outputs, you should also keep in mind that everything at this stage is a work in progress. The writing assignments (esp. the paper stubs) are meant to be low stakes, in the sense that you should feel free to test out ideas and see where they lead. There are no penalties for attempting an argument that ultimately fails. Written assignments are only penalized for being tedious, unimaginative, careless, or sloppy. Not every idea you have will lead to a publication; but you should at least give yourself a chance by starting with interesting ideas and promising arguments. In this spirit, paper stubs and critical reviews should be drafted prior to class and everyone should be prepared to discuss whatever they ve written for that week. Your writing combined with the assigned reading will serve as the basis for class discussion. This will give you a chance to get feedback on what you ve written. You can then use that feedback 2

to revise your writing before you submit it (within a day or two of class). The last week of class will be devoted to student presentation and class discussion of research paper drafts. Final versions will be then be submitted (NB. Your research paper can build on a paper stub or critical review. So you can also use class discussion to get early feedback on an idea for your research paper.) 4. Collaboration. You are free to collaborate on assignments with other members of the class, under one condition: I give equal credit to all collaborators. I don t want to take the time to sort out who contributed what to the project; I ll just assume that all collaborators are equally responsible for the final product. So don t enter a collaboration with someone who won t pull their weight; you ll only have yourself to blame when they get credit for your hard work. Also, note that collaborating is certainly not half the work of solo authorship. Collaboration can enhance and refine your work, perhaps make the process more fun, but it does not necessarily decrease the amount of work. 5. Word limits. Word limits are strict no exceptions. If you re over the word limit, I ll send the paper back without grading it. Tailor your focus to the word limit (don t bite off more than you can chew). Streamline your arguments (without sacrificing necessary details). Cut the fat in your prose (no unnecessary words). 6. Obligatory note about plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious academic offence. Accordingly, it will be treated seriously. Plagiarism will not be tolerated in any form. The first offence will result in immediate failure of the class and the academic dishonesty will be noted on your student record. Plagiarism will be defined as follows: Plagiarism consists in taking credit for academic work that did not originate with you. The following are examples: (1) Using the words of another person without citing the reference. (2) Collaborating on a paper without noting the contribution of the other author(s). 3

Reading Schedule Date Reading 1 Oct Common humanity 1. Gilabert, From Global Poverty, chs. 1, 2, 5 7 (skim 4) 1. Simon Caney, Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), chs. 2, 4, 5 2. Simon Caney, Humanity, Associations, and Global Justice: In Defence of Humanity-Centred Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism, The Monist 94, no. 4 (2011): 506 534 3. Pablo Gilabert, Cosmopolitan Overflow, The Monist 94, no. 4 (2011): 584 592 4. Andrea Sangiovanni, Global Justice and the Moral Arbitrariness of Birth, The Monist 94, no. 4 (2011): 571 583 8 Oct 1. Ypi, Global Justice & Avant-Garde Political Agency, chs. 2 6 (skim 7) 1. Luis Cabrera, Political Theory of Global Justice: A Cosmoplitan Case for the World State (New York: Routledge, 2004), chs. 1, 3, 4 2. Helena de Bres, What s Special About the State? Utilitas 23, no. 3 (2011): 140 160 3. Robert E. Goodin, What is So Special about Our Fellow Countrymen? Ethics 98, no. 4 (1988): 663 686 4. Lea Ypi, Statist Cosmopolitanism, Journal of Political Philosophy 16, no. 1 (2008): 48 71 15 Oct Coercion 1. Miller, Globalizing Justice, chs. 1 3, 6, 8 (skim 5, 9) 1. Michael Blake, Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy, Philosophy & Public Affairs 30, no. 3 (2001): 257 296 2. Michael Blake, Coercion and Egalitarian Justice, The Monist 94, no. 4 (2011): 555 570 3. Thomas Nagel, The Problem of Global Justice, Philosophy & Public Affairs 33, no. 2 (2005): 113 147 4. Risse, On Global Justice, chs. 1 3 4

22 Oct 1. Valentini, Justice in a Globalized World, chs. 3, 5, 6 8 (skim 2, 4) 1. Arash Abizadeh, Cooperation, Pervasive Impact, and Coercion: On the Scope (not Site) of Distributive Justice, Philosophy & Public Affairs 35, no. 4 (2007): 318 358 2. A.J. Julius, Nagel s Atlas, Philosophy & Public Affairs 34, no. 2 (2006): 176 192 3. Ryan Pevnick, Political Coercion and the Scope of Distributive Justice, Political Studies 56, no. 2 (2008): 399 413 4. Andrea Sangiovanni, The Irrelevance of Coercion, Imposition, and Framing to Distributive Justice, Philosophy & Public Affairs 40, no. 2 (2012): 79 110 29 Oct Cooperation 1. James, Fairness in Practice, chs. 1 3, 5, 7 (skim 4, 6) 1. Aaron James, Constructing Justice for Existing Practice: Rawls and the Status Quo, Philosophy & Public Affairs 33, no. 3 (2005): 281 316 2. Saladin Meckled-Garcia, On the Very Idea of Cosmoplitan Justice: Constructivism and International Agency, The Journal of Political Philosophy 16, no. 3 (2008): 245 271 3. Andrea Sangiovanni, Global Justice, Reciprocity, and the State, Philosophy & Public Affairs 35, no. 1 (2007): 3 39 4. Andrea Sangiovanni, Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality, Journal of Political Philosophy 36, no. 2 (2008): 137 164 5. Laura Valentini, Global Justice and Practice-Dependence: Conventionalism, Institutionalism, Functionalism, The Journal of Political Philosophy 19, no. 4 (2011): 399 418 5 Nov 1. Moellendorf, Cosmopolitan Justice, chs. 1 4 1. Charles R. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations, 2nd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), ch. 3 2. Joshua Cohen and Charles Sabel, Extra Rempublicam Nulla Justitia? Philosophy & Public Affairs 34, no. 2 (2006): 147 175 3. Thomas W. Pogge, Realizing Rawls (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), chs. 5, 6 4. Miriam Ronzoni, The Global Order: A Case of Background Injustice? A Practice- Dependent Account, Philosophy & Public Affairs 37, no. 3 (2009): 229 256 5

12 Nov Common identity 1. Miller, National Responsibility and Global Justice, chs. 2, 3, 5, 9 (skim 4) 1. Arash Abizadeh and Pablo Gilabert, Is There a Genuine Tension Between Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism and Special Responsibilities? Philosophical Studies 138, no. 3 (2008): 349 365 2. Andrew Altman and Christopher Heath Wellman, A Liberal Theory of International Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), chs. 1, 2, 6 3. Gillian Brock, Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), chs. 3, 10 12 4. Margaret Moore, Cosmopolitanism and Political Communities, Social Theory and Practice 32, no. 4 (2006): 627 658 5. Samuel Scheffler, Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), chs. 4, 5, 7 6. Kok-Chor Tan, Justice Without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Patriotism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), chs. 5 7 19 Nov Common ownership 1. Risse, On Global Justice, chs. 1, 5 8 1. Eric Cavallero, Coercion, Inequality and the International Property Regime, The Journal of Political Philosophy 18, no. 1 (2010): 16 31 2. Cara Nine, Global Justice and Territory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), TBD 3. Avery Kolers, Justice, Territory and Natural Resources, Political Studies 60, no. 2 (2012): 269 286 4. Leif Wenar, Property Rights and the Resource Curse, Philosophy & Public Affairs 36, no. 1 (2008): 2 32 6

26 Nov Competition 1. David Wiens, Cosmopolitanism and Competition: A Challenge to Global Egalitarianism (manuscript) 2. David Wiens, Demands of Justice, Feasible Alternatives, and the Need for Causal Analysis, Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 16, no. 2 (2013): 325 338 3. David Wiens, Achieving Global Justice: Why Failures Matter More Than Ideals, in Making Global Institutions Work: Power, Accountability and Change, ed. Kate Brennan (New York: Routledge, forthcoming) 4. David Wiens, Natural Resources and Government Responsiveness, Politics, Philosophy and Economics (forthcoming) 1. Allen Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), chs. 5 7 (skim 1) 2. Simon Caney, Cosmopolitan Justice and Institutional Design: An Egalitarian Liberal Conception of Global Governance, Social Theory and Practice 32, no. 4 (2006): 725 756 3. Robert E. Goodin, Global Democracy: In The Beginning, International Theory 2, no. 2 (2010): 175 209 4. Thomas W. Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights, 2nd (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2008), chs. 4, 7, 8 3 Dec Student presentations 7