Skip to main content
Log in

Why Global Distributive Justice Cannot Work

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues that a political theory of global distributive justice, as envisaged by neo-Rawlsian cosmopolitans, makes no sense. Political theorists such as Charles Beitz, Thomas Pogge, and Darrel Moellendorf have argued that John Rawls's egalitarian conception of distributive justice should be applied globally, despite Rawls's own insistence on its limited applicability to domestic society. Against this position, two main arguments for skepticism about global egalitarian distributive justice are offered. First, the world cannot plausibly be understood in terms of a society in Rawls's sense, and a Rawlsian global original position cannot generate politically meaningful principles of distributive justice. Second, global distributive justice cannot serve as an achievable goal of international political endeavor within an environment that is, and should remain, anarchic; the utopian world government that it requires seems unrealistic, and in any event is politically undesirable from a liberal perspective. The cosmopolitan ideal of global distributive justice should have no weight in moral reasoning about international political choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kamminga, M. Why Global Distributive Justice Cannot Work. Acta Polit 41, 21–40 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500136

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500136

Keywords

Navigation