Suchergebnisse

Abstract
There is a growing body of work illustrating that we can motivate individuals to donate more to charities by nudging them through various behavioral techniques. Yet, there is very little discussion of whether we should motivate individuals by using these types of techniques. In this paper, I explore this under-examined matter. I begin by surveying the various ways in which individuals can be nudged to donate to charity. I then consider whether we should nudge people in these ways. I explore this matter by considering whether nudging interferes with an individual's autonomy and, if it does, whether this is morally impermissible. I argue that, in some cases, nudging will interfere with an individual's autonomy. I spell out which cases these are. I then argue that whether interfering with an individual's autonomy through nudging, as a means of alleviating poverty (and, in turn, promoting human rights), is impermissible will depend on whether we have perfect or imperfect duties to aid the poor. I close by suggesting that, at least for the time being, the moral permissibility of nudging poverty alleviation is indeterminate.

Sebbene sia comunemente riconosciuto che la povertà non rappresenti una condizione auspicabile in nessuna società, alla luce della grande quantità di dati e studi in materia, diventa difficile difendere la persistenza della stessa a causa dell'impossibilità di trovare un efficace metodo per sradicarla. Le prove presentate per sostenere l'idea che la povertà globale sia prevenibile, sono l'essenza delle forze motivazionali che guidano l'elaborazione di questa tesi. Esse sono, in ultima analisi, innescate da un genuino interesse per la comprensione dei fattori che, attualmente, costringono circa 1 miliardo di persone a vivere in una condizione di precarietà. Inoltre, tale interesse è nutrito dal paradosso per il quale nonostante le persone in genere rifiutino e condannino la miseria umana, gli strumenti principali che sono stati messi in atto dalla comunità internazionale per sradicare tale fenomeno —basandosi in modo significativo su aiuti pubblici allo sviluppo (APS)— godano di grande legittimità anche se non presentano né risultati chiari né pure intenzioni di sviluppo. In sede di esame del sistema di cooperazione internazionale, sembra emergere un divario tra la realtà e la retorica tradizionale sul tema , il quale può generare alcuni dubbi non solo circa l'adeguatezza delle attuali pratiche di lotta alla povertà, ma anche riguardo le normative su cui si basano tali pratiche. Questa tesi di dottorato analizza la povertà globale —così come l'APS— non solo da un punto di vista della pratica politica (attraverso la ricerca quantitativa e qualitativa), ma anche da una prospettiva filosofico-normativa. Dopo un primo capitolo descrittivo riguardante l'APS, i risultati di questa strategia multidisciplinare vengono presentati divisi in tre capitoli corrispondenti ai tre approcci (quantitativi, qualitativi e normativi), ciascuno dei quali é incluso in un documento accademico. Nel complesso, essi indicano l'idea che oggi - anche se ci sono abbastanza elementi che sembrano innescare chiari e imperativi doveri morali positivi che impongono di combattere la povertà globale - ci troviamo immersi in un paradigma di sviluppo che è intensamente rafforzato dai principali attori coinvolti, che dedicano sforzi eccezionali a diffondere ampiamente lodi e complimenti a un sistema di cooperazione internazionale i cui risultati sono fortemente discutibili. ; Although it seems commonly agreed upon that poverty does not represent a desirable outcome in any society, in light of the large amount of data and studies on the subject, it becomes hard to defend the persistence of poverty as a result of the impossibility of finding the right path to eradicate it. The evidence raised to support the idea that global poverty is preventable is at the core of the motivational forces driving the elaboration of this thesis, which is ultimately triggered by a genuine interest in understanding the underlying factors that allow around 1 billion people to live precariously at the present moment. Moreover, such interest is nourished by the paradox that although people generally reject and condemn human misery, the main instruments that have been put in place by the international community to eradicate it —relying significantly on Official Development Assistance (ODA)—enjoy great legitimacy even though they do not exhibit nor clear results neither pure developmental intentions. A gap between reality and the traditional rhetoric on the topic seems to emerge when scrutinising the international cooperation apparatus; a gap that can provoke some doubts not only about the adequacy of the current practices for fighting poverty but also regarding the normative grounds on which such practices rest. Hence, this doctoral thesis analyses the global poverty issue— as well as ODA— not only from a policy practice perspective (through quantitative and qualitative research) but also from a normative philosophical angle. The results of this multidisciplinary strategy are exposed after a first descriptive chapter on ODA, in three chapters corresponding to the three approaches (quantitative, qualitative and normative), each of them reflected in an academic paper. Overall, they point to the idea that today —even though there are enough elements that seem to trigger clear and imperative positive moral duties that dictate to fight global poverty— we find ourselves immersed in a development paradigm that is intensively reinforced by the main actors involved in it, who devote outstanding efforts to widely spreading praise and compliments to an international cooperation system whose achievements are highly debatable.

Global poverty is a huge problem in today's world. This survey article seeks to be a first guide to those who are interested in, but relatively unfamiliar with, the main issues, positions and arguments in the contemporary philosophical discussion of global poverty. The article attempts to give an overview of four distinct and influential normative positions on global poverty. Moreover, it seeks to clarify, and put into perspective, some of the key concepts and issues that take center stage in the philosophical discussion of global poverty. The four positions to be discussed are labeled the Maximalist Position, the Minimalist Position, Intermediate Position I and Intermediate Position II. After an account of these four distinct positions, we turn, in the conclusion, to a discussion of what role empirical sciences such as economics and political science should play in normative considerations about global poverty.

1. Sizing up the issues -- 2. Arrangements for preferential access : experience and potential -- 3. Industrial-country protection and the impact of trade liberalization on global poverty -- 4. Modeling the impact of trade liberalization on global poverty -- 5. The impact of trade on poverty through growth effects -- 6. Conclusion.

Each year, millions of people die from poverty-related causes. In this groundbreaking and thought-provoking book, Gwilym David Blunt argues that the only people who will end this injustice are its victims, and that the global poor have the right to resist the causes of poverty. He explores how the right of resistance is used to reframe urgent political questions: is illegal immigration a form of resistance? Can transnational social movements, such as the indigenous rights movement, provide the foundations for civil resistance to global poverty? If peaceful resistance fails, is armed struggle justified? Do people living in affluent states have a responsibility to help even if it requires them to break the law? Giving clear historical examples and engaging with fields including philosophy, international law, history, and international political studies, this volume addresses real-world issues from terrorism to activism. It will be important for anyone interested in applied philosophy and global injustice.

This article argues that institutional cosmopolitanism and liberal nationalism can be reconciled as compatible, at least when considering various normative prescriptions for institutional and political relationships. The main claim is that liberal nationalism and the theory of national responsibility present a cosmopolitan argument maintaining that political institutional bodies should be held responsible for catering to their people. So conceived, liberal nationalism provides a significant contribution to contemporary cosmopolitan theory. Three arguments are provided. First, it is argued that liberal nationalists shares fundamental values with institutional cosmopolitans, as Pogge suggests, and especially that they agree on the relevance of shared responsibility supplementing individual responsibility. Second, national responsibility is endorsed as a productive way of determining responsibility for the political distribution of goods and benefits for a group of people that supplements responsibilities at the global level. Yet a premise for this reading of national responsibility is the disputing of the cultural assumptions which are often attributed to the theory of national responsibility. Hence, thirdly, by disentangling the cultural assumptions from the concept of national responsibility, the article suggests a concept of national responsibility based on political institutional capacity rather than culture. Adapted from the source document.

Chapter 2 -- Global wealth inequalityEquality: why it matters; Sustainable Development Goal 10: reduce inequality within and among countries; In it together: why less inequality benefits all; Tackling inequality vital to ending extreme poverty by 2030; Tackling inequality; Global inequality is on the rise -- but at vastly different rates across the world; World Inequality Report 2018; The cutting edge of inequality; World Bank report finds rise in global wealth, but inequality persists; Richest 1% bagged 82% of wealth created last year -- poorest half of humanity got nothing

This article provides a critical assessment of three ambitious books (Sachs's The End of Poverty, Bhagwati's In Defense of Globalization, and Easterly's The Elusive Quest for Growth ), each of which seeks to (re)frame debates over poverty, development, growth, globalization, and more. The insights and shortcomings of these three books remind us that the status quo is not working and that a rich understanding of globalization and development requires a serious consideration of alternative visions of each.