Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Several commentators focus substantial criticism on my proposals that require skilled citizens in poor developing states to assist those countries for short periods or with additional taxation measures. In particular, they are skeptical about any so-called fair contracts between governments and students that can defensibly bind students to perform service and pay taxes. They worry that the conditions and terms of these contracts cannot make for morally binding agreements. In Section 1 I review some key points from my overall argument strategy, indicating why the mechanism of fair contracts is a good focal point within the context of the debate. In Section 2 I consider and respond to several of the criticisms that aim to undermine the idea that students can enter into fair contracts that cover compulsory service and taxation programs. In Section 3, I consider prospects and pitfalls concerning extending some core lines of argument, mainly in response to Lea Ypi's creative ideas.

Abstract
The basic needs of desperately poor people frequently activate normative concern. An important part of addressing deprivation is the availability of skilled personnel able to provide what would fulfill needs. Sadly, developing countries, where neediness is most dire, experience severe shortages of just such personnel. For instance, about 4.25 million more health workers are needed to supply basic health for all. These shortages are exacerbated by the departure of high numbers of skilled personnel from developing countries seeking better prospects for themselves in developed ones. What, if anything, may developing countries defensibly do to solve problems associated with high skill migration? In our just published book, Debating Brain Drain: May Governments Restrict Emigration?, I develop an account of the responsibilities skilled citizens of poor, developing countries have to contribute to deprivation reduction, especially when they wish to leave such countries. In this overview article I discuss the structure of that project. I focus particularly on my case that carefully designed compulsory service and taxation programs can be justified under certain kinds of conditions.

In his recent review essay, Stan van Hooft raises some interesting potential challenges for cosmopolitan global justice projects, of which my version is one example.1 I am grateful to van Hooft for doing so. I hope by responding to these challenges here, others concerned with developing frameworks for analyzing issues of global justice will also learn something of value. I start by giving a very brief synopsis of key themes of my book, Global Justice,2 so I can address van Hooft's concerns about the structure of the book. I then outline the normative thought experiment that yields the global justice framework I endorse, in order to address five main concerns van Hooft has with it. These center around problems he foresees about what it would be reasonable to agree to in the face of quite different worldviews. There are five specific concerns he identifies related to reasonableness and I address these in the third and fourth sections of this paper. Adapted from the source document.