1. Cosmopolitanism, Trade, and Global (or Regional) Transfers Michael W. Howard Department of Philosophy University of Maine USA

2. Varieties of Global Justice Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism Peripheral global justice Minimal global justice

3. Peripheral global justice Reparations for past injustice Fair trade (beyond mutual gain) Allocation of costs and benefits of cooperation “all rely on a prior worldwide definition of legitimate entitlement to economic goods” (P. Van Parijs, 2006)

4. Minimal global justice Egalitarian distribution of natural resources (global resource dividend) Minimum standard of human rights (including economic entitlements)

5. Main question Is there an institutional basis for distributive justice across borders (I.e., globally or regionally), that is intrinsic to trade? Why institutional? Why not cosmopolitan egalitarianism?

6. Fair trade An alternative to non-institutional cosmopolitanism and institutional nationalism Fairness of particular transactions vs. fairness of the structure of background conditions in which transactions occur

7. Does trade itself generate intrinsic principles for fair trade, that can support international transfers? …basic income? An informal governance conception of social justice (James 2005):

8. Informal governance A governance conception of justice: necessary condition for application of a principle of distributive justice: “some appropriate form of organizational control” (James 2005) Informal: governance does not require a sovereign state, but exists also with less formal social coordination, that gives rise to demands for justification, which can be addressed to some agent.

9. Existing system of Multilateral Trade Trade is “undertaken for common purposes” (I.e., reliance on global markets) “it involves the coordination of action” I.e., mutual market reliance “it provides a distinct subject of assessment”, I.e., the structure of existing trade…constituted by standing trade policies…treaties…[and] informal expections” and effects independent of particular transactions.

10. Two Principles Due Care Fair Distribution

11. Due Care Prevent forseeable negative consequences of joint activity Compensate for resulting harm eg. Global capital markets transitional protections (incl. BI)

12. Fair Distribution “Concerns only participants in trade International, comparing nations, not individuals Egalitarian: “those who do their part receive an equal or otherwise acceptable share of [the benefits of a shared governable practice], and no more than an equal or otherwise acceptable share of the burdens that make those benefits possible.”

13. Contrast with free trade Free trade: both parties consent to trade rules that result in mutually beneficial transactions Fair distribution: requires justification for any departure from equal sharing of benefits and burdens internationally.

14. Contrast with cosmopolitan egalitarianism Fair distribution confined to benefits and burdens of trade, leaving pre-existing inequalities to one side (“peripheral”) An international principle; does not require maximin for worst off persons. –If it did “trade must have effectively united societies, so that participation in one society is not relevantly different from participation in another”

15. Link with cosmopolitan egalitarianism ‘independent or pre-existing factors that were once relevant or non-arbitrary will inevitably become irrelevant or arbitrary over time”

16. Implications for basic income policy Minimalist approaches –Egalitarian distribution of natural resources: global resource dividend; low level –Humanitarian assistance: strong foundation in global/regional poverty; minimalist; target and cutoff

17. Fair trade Can complement minimalist approaches Ongoing Progressive Due Care--Compensation for harm –Lends itself to income; not regular, universal or uniform Due Care--transitional protections –May include BI, along with other policies

18. Fair distribution Does not specify how individuals are to be treated National options may include BI Safety nets as conditions for fairness