Analyse & Kritik

Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory

Legitimationsprobleme der Globalisierung

2003 (25) Issue 2


Im Jahr 2000 entsprach der Anteil aller grenzüberschreitend gehandelten Waren und Dienstleistungen mehr als einem Viertel des weltweiten Angebots, während es noch 1970 nur etwa 10% waren. Zugleich 'globalisierte' sich in rapider Geschwindigkeit der Aktionsradius vieler Unternehmen. Allein im Jahr 2000 investierten diese Unternehmen 1,3 Billionen Dollar über Grenzen hinweg. Gemessen an ihren Umsätzen ist inzwischen eine Gruppe von etwa 15 Unternehmen kapitalstärker als die 60 ärmsten Staate...

More →

Table of Contents

Title: Globalisierung ohne Weltregierung
Author: Bruno S. Frey
Page: 121-134

Abstract: Since international trade leads to prosperity, most economics are in favor of globalization. This basic conviction is shared in this paper. Several standard arguments brought forward by critics of globalization - e.g. the claims that globalization increases poverty, destroys jobs, undermines the welfare state, enables international corporations to seize power and leads to environmental degradation and uniform culture - are shown to be invalid. Nevertheless, compared to orthodox economists, a more critical view of globalization is proposed in this paper, and several shortcomings of globalization are discussed. These shortcomings are the unidirectional trade liberalization at the expense of developing countries, international organizations, like the IMF of World Bank, representing narrow economic interests and, above all, the lack of 'global governance'. Therefore, the implementation of functional overlapping competing jurisdiction (FOCJ) is put forward. It is argued that the alternative proposition of a world government is dangerous, and global solidarity (also in the form of a 'Global Compact') ineffective.

Title: Legitimationsfragen der Globalisierung - eine vertragstheoretische Sicht
Author: Gerhard Wegner
Page: 135-155

Abstract: In this article I argue that contractarian theory is a fruitful approach for dealing with questions of legitimacy in light of globalisation. I try to point out that impaired conditions for providing collective goods in nation-states do not call the legitimacy of globalisation into question, even if the provision of such goods meets with consent amongst the citizens of the nation-state. The need to raise taxes as a consequence of the transfer of mobile resources to other countries can indicate the existence of state activities which lack legitimacy from the contractarian perspective. However, the impossibility of applying the exclusion principle in providing collective goods indeed entails legitimatory problems of globalisation. In this respect, a need for international agreements exists. Nevertheless, unilateral attempts by nation-states to withdraw the domestic economy from global influences can interfere with the welfare of other collectives and they therefore lack legitimacy, a moral consequence which is in danger of being neglected even from a contractarian approach.

Title: Heimliche Komplizenschaft? Multinationale Unternehmen und die Versuchungen von Ökonomismus und Postmodernismus
Author: Andreas Georg Scherer
Page: 156-175

Abstract: In a globalized world nation state governments are no longer able to control the behaviour of global economic actors via legislation and execution. At the same time transnational organizations such as the UN, the ILO or the WTO have not yet established a suitable world order for the global economy. Critics of globalization raise concerns that in many countries multinational firms and their suppliers do not comply to human rights or to social and environmental standards. At the same time, local governments do not enforce these standards and transnational organizations are not allowed to intervene because of the principle of sovereignty. In the present paper I analyse the conclusions that can be drawn from economic free trade theory and from postmodern philosophy concerning the behaviour of multinational firms in developing countries. Despite their paradigmatical differences both these approaches come to similar results.

Title: Why Deliberation Cannot Tame Globalization. The Impossibility of a Deliberative Democrat
Author: Andrew Kuper
Page: 176-198

Abstract: How is it possible for individuals to exercise any control over a political order that is supranational and multilayered? This key question must be answered if we are to reconcile democratic principles with the requirement of global justice as well as with the cosmopolitan political institutions that play an ever-increasing role in our world. The leading answer to this question, at present, is that of Jürgen Habermas and his followers: deliberative democracy. This article, however, argues that theories of deliberative democracy fail to take seriously both the problems and the opportunities of large-scale societies and so cannot provide adequate conceptual foundations for deepening and globalizing democracy. In particular, the participatory requirements of Habermas's normative theory can be met only by making assumptions about human cognitive capacities and institutional capabilities that are not remotely plausible in any pluralistic society.

Title: Poverty and Responsibility in a Globalized World
Author: Regina Kreide
Page: 199-219

Abstract: This article seeks to explain some of the ramifications of globalization processes for the pressing problem of increasing global poverty. It distinguishes two competing approaches to explaining the causes of poverty-related injustice and justifying conceptions of obligations towards the poor. A first approach, the assistance approach, is mainly directed at identifying inappropriate worldwide income and asset distribution; the other, the causal approach focuses on the effects international regulations have on people's lives. This article explains that both approaches depend on the interpretation of the current state of economic and political interdependence. It is argued that both conceptions have their pitfalls, but that from a theoretical as well as pragmatic point of view, it makes sense to defend an ,integrated, perspective that also takes into account the responsibility of non-state actors.

Title: "Armenhilfe" ins Ausland
Author: Thomas W. Pogge
Page: 220-247

Abstract: We citizens of the affluent countries tend to discuss our obligations toward the distant needy in terms of donations and transfers, assistance and redistribution. This way of conceiving the problem is a serious moral error, and a very costly one for the global poor. It depends on the false belief that the causes of the persistence of severe poverty are indigenous to the countries in which it occurs. There are indeed national and local factors that contribute to persistent poverty in developing countries. But global institutional rules also play an important role in its reproduction, in part by sustaining the national and local factors that affluent Westerners most like to blame for the problem. Since these rules are shaped by our governments, in our name, we bear moral responsibility not merely by assisting the distant poor too little, but also, and more significantly, by harming them too much.

Title: Die moralische Bedeutung politischer Grenzen
Author: Frank Dietrich
Page: 248-258

Abstract: In his recent book One World one of Peter Singer's main concerns is the preferential treatment of compatriots. Two aspects of Singer's theoretical reflections on this issue are critically discussed: the use of an impartiality test as basis for the justification of special duties and the resulting condemnation of partial preferences for compatriots. Subsequently, an alternative way to justify special duties is outlined and applied to the case of fellow citizens. It is argued, that partiality to compatriots can be defended, if special duties are regarded as a constitutive part of valuable relationships.

Title: Utilitarismus, Menschenrechte und Nichtregierungs-Organisationen
Author: Thomas Kesselring
Page: 259-274

Abstract: The following comment on Peter Singer's One World is divided into four parts. It starts with some objections against Singer's utilitarian approach (1). Then it argues for an 'Ethics of Globalization' which at the same time has universal validity and maintains context sensitivity (2). In part three it is shown that these two conditions are better fulfilled by an ethics based on Human Rights than by an utilitarian ethics. In this context John Rawls, 'Law of Peoples' is defended against Singer's criticism (3). In the final part the role of Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which are not mentioned by Singer' is analyzed. It is argued that in a world in which the states are overcharged, the United Nations weakened and the Transnational Companies, power is increasing, the NGOs get growing responsibility up to the point that many of them turn out to become Human Right's advocates and Human Right's guardians (4).

Title: Four Charges Against the WTO
Author: Mark S. Peacock / Michael Schefczyk / Peter Schaber
Page: 275-284

Abstract: My comment on the third chapter of Peter Singer's One World consists of two parts. In the first, I criticise a common but simplistic approach to the issue of economic globalisation. This approach presumes that charges against the WTO can be translated - more or less directly - into charges against current development trends of the global economy. The WTO is not the only institution that legally structures the global economy, nor are decisions of the GATT or WTO panel necessarily reliable indicators of the major trends in the ever more integrated world market. It is, moreover, far from clear whether competition between jurisdictions leads to a 'race to the bottom'. In the second part of the paper, I (i) criticise the idea of a general conflict between 'the market' and 'democracy'. (ii) I defend the WTO's consensus rule against Singer's charge of being 'a very strange view of democracy' and try to make its benefits clear.

Title: One World. A Response to my Critics
Author: Peter Singer
Page: 285-293

Abstract: The following response to the essays by Dietrich, Kesselring and Schefczyk discusses impartiality and foundations of special duties; utilitarianism, foreign aid, NGOs and human rights; and ethical aspects of free trade and the World Trade Organization.