Sharing the World

Interdependence and global justice

Amartya Sen
Amartya Sen is a renowned Indian economist and Nobel prize winner. He is a strong proponent
of globalization. In this essay, he tries to address the arguments against globalization and
identify solutions to that would make the people all around the world experience the benefits of
globalization.

Justice, it has been argued, should not only be done, it must also be ‘seen to be done.’ Or, more
explicitly (as Lord Hewart put it in his famous judgement in 1923), justice ‘should manifestly
and undoubtedly be seen to be done.’ It is useful to think of this requirement of justice when
assessing the pros and cons of globalisation in general, and the particular role of interdependence
in making globalisation a success. There are good reasons to argue that economic globalisation is
an excellent overall goal and that it is making a very positive contribution in the contemporary
world. At the same time, it is hard to deny that there is some difficulty in persuading a great
many people — making them ‘see’ — that globalisation is a manifest blessing for all, including
the poorest. The existence of this confrontation does not make globalisation a bad goal, but it
requires us to examine the reasons for which there is difficulty in making everyone see that
globalisation is ‘manifestly and undoubtedly’ good.
According to Lord Hewart, the public must not only hear that the justice is carried out but should
also be able to see that it is actually carried. This is the responsibility of the law-makers and
those who are responsible for maintaining law order in society. Only then the people will have
strong faith in justice. According to Sen, this can be applied to economic globalization. the
concept globalization has been opposed by many people around the world. The economists and
supporters of globalization, should instead of arguing and trying to insist that globalization is
beneficial to all alike must ensure that they should make the people see and experience the
benefits of globalization. The writer also insists that we should look into the reasons why the
some people oppose globalization and what is the difficulty in making them understand its
benefits.

The critical assessment of globalisation has to go hand in hand with trying to understand why so
many critics, who are not moved just by contrariness or obduracy, find it hard to accept that
globalisation is a great boon for the deprived people of the world. If many people, especially in
the less prosperous countries in the world, have genuine difficulty in seeing that globalisation is
in their interest, then there is something seriously challenging in that non-meeting of minds. The
underlying challenge involves the role of public reasoning and the need for what John Rawls, the
philosopher, calls ‘a public framework of thought,’ which provides ‘an account of agreement in
judgement among reasonable agents.’ Rawls’s own analysis of critical assessment was largely
confined to issues of justice within a country, but it can be extended to global arguments as well,
and certainly has to be so extended if we are trying to assess the ends, and also the ways and
means, of appropriate globalisation. The goal of globalisation cannot be concerned only with
commodity relations, while shunning the relations of minds.
Globalization is beneficial to all classes of people particularly it’s a boon to the deprived class of
people. But it is not understood by people and it results in opposition. The opponents have some
difficulty in understanding this and there is a great challenge in making them understand it. sen
says that this non-meeting of minds is a serious matter which should be looked into. Sen quotes
the philosopher John Rawls who insists on the demand for “a public framework of thought”
which will bring about agreement in the judgement among the people involved in the society.
sen thinks that this can be applied to the concept of globalization. he believes that a common
framework of understanding must be created among the public around the world with respect to
globalization as well. I n order to have aclear cut understanding of globalization, our focus
should not be on the end or outcomes of it alone but also in the process or the ways in which it is
implemented. The success of globalization is not determined by the commodities but also in the
meeting or clear understanding of the minds.

Distribution of benefits
When, a year ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations requested the Secretary-General
to prepare a report on ‘globalisation and interdependence’ to ‘forge greater coherence,’ they were
opening the door not only to conventional questions of ways and means, but also to questions
that deal with the transparency of assessments and the discernability of benefits. We have to ask,
in particular, how global economic relations may be assessed in a way that the consequent
understanding can be widely shared.
A year before this essay was written the General assembly of the UN had trusted its Secretary-
General with the task of preparing a report on “Globalization and Interdependence” to have a
better understanding of how globalization works. This report not only asked common questions
like what and how globalization will be implemented but it also focused on how transparent the
assessment of globalization is and how far the benefits of it is discernible. We can also ask
questions like how the assessment of globalization can lead to better understanding of the
concept by the people around the world.

Having started this essay at the level of some generality, let me now take a plunge in the interest
of brevity to an exercise of assessment. The achievements of globalisation are visibly impressive
in many parts of the world. We can hardly fail to see that the global economy has brought
prosperity to quite a few different areas on the globe. Pervasive poverty and ‘nasty, brutish and
short1’ lives dominated the world a few centuries ago, with only a few pockets of rare affluence.
In overcoming that penury, extensive economic interrelations as well as the deployment of
modern technology have been extremely influential and productive.
Sen says he started the essay at a very general level but is moving on to specific details in order
to crisp and clear in assessing the benefits of globalization. the benefits of globalization is
clearly seen in many parts of the world. it has brought prosperity to different parts of the globe.
A few centuries ago, deep-run poverty and afflictions were wide spread throughout the world
and there were only a very few countries that were affluent and prosperous. It was seen that to
overcome poverty in many of the places, extensive relations between the economies of he world
countries and distribution of modern technology to all parts of the world have been very
effective. They were influential and productive in overcoming the poverty in many places in the
world.

It is also not difficult to see that the economic predicament of the poor across the world cannot
be reversed by withholding from them the great advantages of contemporary technology, the
well-established efficiency of international trade and exchange, and the social as well as
economic merits of living in open rather than closed societies. People from very deprived
countries clamour for the fruits of modern technology (such as the use of newly invented
medicines, for example for treating AIDS); they seek greater access to the markets in the richer

1
Author refers to Thomas Hobbes’ memorable description of natural state of mankind being “solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short”
countries for a wide variety of commodities, from sugar to textiles; and they want more voice
and attention from the rest of the world. If there is scepticism of the results of globalisation, it is
not because suffering humanity wants to withdraw into its shell.
Sen says that it should be understood that the unsatisfactory economic conditions of the deprived
people cannot be improved by withholding them from the enjoying he benefits of technology,
taking part in international market and being open and living in a society rather than in a closed
group. The people in deprived countries are in need of advanced medicines for life threatening
diseases, want to enjoy the benefits of new technology, want access to various products at the
world market and they also want more support and attention from the other countries. Sen says
that since thereis opposition to globalization, it doesn’t mean that the suffering and the
downtrodden people want to shut themselves away from the rest of the world. they are actually
in great need of help and support from other countries.

In fact, the pre-eminent practical issues include the possibility of making good use of the
remarkable benefits of economic connections, technological progress and political opportunity in
a way that pays adequate attention to the interests of the deprived and the underdog. That is, I
would argue, the constructive question that emerges from the anti-globalisation movements. It is,
ultimately, not a question of rubbishing global economic relations, but of making the benefits of
globalisation more fairly distributed.
According to Sen, the main challenge here is how to make maximum benefit out of the economic
trade relations among the countries, technological progress throughout the world and make use
of opportunities available at the world political level. A method which paves way to cater to the
needs of the deprived and poor people should be indentified. So, Sen says that the people who
are against globalization should not just focus on saying that globalization should be done away
with but instead focus on how get maximum and equal benefits out of globalization.

How fair is the share?

The distributional questions that figure so prominently in the rhetoric of both anti-globalisation
protesters and pro-globalisation defenders need some clarification. Indeed, this central issue has
suffered, I would argue, from the popularity of somewhat unfocused questions. For example, it is
often argued that the poor are getting poorer. This, in fact, is by no means the standard situation
(quite the contrary), even though there are some particular cases in which this has happened.
Much depends, in any case, on what indicators of economic prosperity are chosen; the answers
that emerge do not speak in one voice. Furthermore, the responsibility for failures does not lie
only on the nature of global relations, and often enough relate more immediately and more
strongly to the nature of domestic economic and social policies. Global economic relations can
flourish with appropriate domestic policies, for example through the expansion of basic
education, health care, land reform and facilities for credit (including micro-credit). These are
good subjects for public discussion — for the exercise of minds — since economic
understanding can be greatly hampered by uncritical and over-rapid attribution of alleged
responsibility.
The important question to be asked by both the supporters and opponents of globalization is how
much share of benefits do all classes of people get out of globalization and not whether they get
benefits or not. The important question whether there is fair distribution of shares is completely
forgotten. There have complaints that the poor countries are getting more and more poor due to
globalization. But Sen thinks that it is not so in many of the cases. When he tries to find out
what the factors which indicate the economic prosperity of he countries, there is no definitive
answer to it and each country or each class of people have different sets of indicators. Further,
Sen claims that if globalization is not found to be effective it is not because the unsuccessful
global interrelationships between the countries but it is because of the lapses in the domestic,
economic, social and political setup within the country. Sen claims that the global ecomic
relation can flourish well and be successful onl when the domestic policies within the country are
effective. The effective domestic policies include provision and expansion of educational
facilities, health care, advanced technology, land reforms and also financial support to the
struggling. The role of domestic policies in making globalization a true success is an important
topic for discussion and training for our minds. Sen insists on the fact that government of each
country is responsible for ensuring that their people get equal benefits out of globalization and
they should not be shirking their duty by pointing to the lapses in global market or global
economy. People should also understand how their local government works.

To rebel against the appalling poverty and staggering inequalities that

characterise the contemporary world, or to protest against unfair
sharing of the benefits of global cooperation, it is not necessary to
 show that the inequality is not only very large, but it is also getting
larger

The contemporary world is full of appalling poverty and staggering inequalities. There is also
unfair sharing of benefits of globalization. to fight against all these it is necessary to not only
understand that the inequality is very large but is becoming larger day by day.

On the other side, enthusiasts for globalisation in its contemporary form often invoke — and
draw greatly on — their understanding that the poor in the world are typically getting less poor,
not (as often alleged) more poor. Globalisation, it is argued, cannot thus be unfair to the poor:
they too benefit — so what’s the problem? If the central relevance of this question were
accepted, then the whole debate would turn on determining which side is right in this mainly
empirical dispute: are the poor getting poorer or richer?
The supporters of globalization claimthat the poor is not getting poorer and they are actually
becoming less poor. But Sen here says that we cannot just be satisfied that poor is also
benefitting out of globalization and allow injustice to the poor.

But is this the right question to ask? I would argue that it absolutely is not. Even if the poor were
to get just a little richer, this need not imply that the poor are getting a fair share of the benefits
of economic interrelations and of the vast potentials of globalisation. Nor is it adequate to ask
whether international inequality is getting marginally larger, or smaller. To rebel against the
appalling poverty and the staggering inequalities that characterise the contemporary world, or to
protest against unfair sharing of the benefits of global cooperation, it is not necessary to show
that the inequality is not only very large, but it is also getting larger.
Sen believes that asking whether the poor is getting richer or poorer is not the right question to
ask. Even if the poor is to get slightly richer, it doesn’t mean that they are getting equal and fair
share out of the benefits of economic interrelations and the vast potentials of globalization. also
it is not enough if we ask whether the inequality is becoming larger or smaller.
The central questions have been clouded far too often by over-intense debates on side issues (to
which both sides in the dispute have contributed). When there are gains from cooperation, there
can be many alternative arrangements that benefit each party compared with no cooperation. It is
necessary, therefore, to ask whether the distribution of gains is fair or acceptable, and not just
whether there exist some gains for all parties (which can be the case for a great many alternative
arrangements). As J.F. Nash, the mathematician and game theorist, discussed more than half a
century ago (in a paper from Econometrica 1950, which was among his writings that were cited
by the Royal Swedish Academy in awarding him the Nobel Prize in economics), the central issue
is not whether a particular arrangement is better for all than no cooperation at all (there can be
many such alternatives), but whether the particular divisions to emerge are fair divisions, given
the alternative arrangements that can be made. The criticism that a distributional arrangement
from cooperation is unfair cannot be rebutted by just noting that all the parties are better off than
would be the case in the absence of cooperation: there can be many — indeed infinitely many —
such arrangements and the real exercise is the choice among these various alternatives.
With too much importance to less relevant questions, the central questions are either forgotten or
confused. There can always be benefits in mutual cooperation. Trying out alternative methods
and ways, we can increase the benefits reaped out of cooperation rather than nullifying the
cooperation as there are lesser benefits. The important question that demands our attention is to
ensure whether the benefits are equally and fairly distributed. The question f whether there are
benefits is irrelevant. J. f. Nash, a mathematician and game theorist, also a Nobel Prize winner
for economics, said that we should focus on the arrangements we arrive at give us fair divisions
rather than analyzing whether we can have arrangements or not. Applying this to the concept of
globalization, we have look into various alternatives that will help us to reap maximum and equal
benefits to all people around the world.

The phantom chase means chasing false impression or belief

I can try to illustrate the point with an analogy. To argue that a particularly unequal and sexist
family arrangement is unfair, it does not have to be shown that women would have done
comparatively better had there been no families at all. That is not the issue: the bone of
contention is whether the sharing of benefits within the family system is seriously unequal in the
existing institutional arrangements. The consideration on which many of the debates on
globalisation have concentrated, to wit, whether the poor too benefit from the established
economic order, is inadequately probing —- indeed it is ultimately the wrong question to ask.
What has to be asked instead is whether they can feasibly have a fairer deal, with a less unequal
distribution of economic, social and political opportunities, and if so, through what international
and domestic arrangements. That is where the real issues lie.
Sen us giving us an analogy to make us understand the situation better. He takes the example of
unequal and sexist family arrangement where the women are burdened with over work. When
the question of how to relieve women from the burden, stress and their struggle to perform well
in their profession is raised, suggesting the family system should be abolished so that the women
can be free to progress in their profession and be happy always appears to be a highly illogical
solution. In the same way, saying that globalization is not helping the deprived people or that the
benefits are not equally distributed, doing away or abandoning globalization is also not a right
solution. On the other hand, steps should be taken to implement a different method of
distrubtion which will ensure equal social, economic and political benefits to all people. this is
the main issue to be focused on.

This is also why the so-called ‘anti-globalisation’ protesters, who seek a better deal for the
underdogs of the world economy, cannot be sensibly seen — contrary to their own rhetoric — as
being really anti-globalisation. Their search has to be for a fairer deal, a more just distribution of
opportunities in a modified global order. And that is also why there is no real contradiction in the
fact that the so-called ‘anti-globalisation protests’ are now among the most globalised events in
the contemporary world. It is a global solution they must ultimately seek, not just local
withdrawals.
The demand of the anti-globalization protestors who strive to help the deprived people lead
better lives is actually insensible in their demand to abolish globalization. their search or
demand should actually be for a fairer or equal distribution of benefits nd opportunities in the
new global order. Sen points out to the fact that the anti-globalization protestors are taking their
demand to the global platform and this is possible for them because of globalization. these
people should seek for a permanent and global solutions rather than for temporary and local
solutions.
But can the deal that different groups get from globalised economic and social relations be
changed without busting or undermining these relations altogether, and in particular without
destroying the global market economy? The answer, I would argue, is entirely in the affirmative.
Indeed, the use of the market economy is consistent with many different ownership patterns,
resource availabilities, social opportunities, rules of operation (such as patent laws, anti-trust
regulations, etc.). And depending on these conditions, the market economy itself would generate
different prices, terms of trade, income distributions, and more generally diverse overall
outcomes. The arrangements for social security and other public interventions can make further
modifications to the outcomes of the market processes. Together, they can radically alter the
prevailing levels of inequality and poverty. All this does not require a demolition of the market
economy, but does demand alterations of the economic and social conditions that help to
determine what market solutions would emerge.
Sen questions whether it is possible to have equal benefits without disturbing or destroying the
relations at the international level or the global market. He further says that it is very much
possible to do that. He says that the benefits we getout of the global market economy depends
mainly on the various, ownership patterns, availability of resources, social opportunities and
market processes. Based on the above mentioned factors, the market economy will give rise to
different prices, trade conditions, profit distributions and other outcomes. The social security
and public influences greatly modify how the global market functions and also play a great role
in modifying the existing levels of poverty and inequality. For this we need not destroy the
global market economy but make economic and socially relevant alterations to get the preferred
outcomes.

The central question is not — indeed cannot be — whether or not to use the market economy.
That shallow question is easy to answer, since it is impossible to achieve much economic
prosperity without making extensive use of the opportunities of exchange and specialisation that
market relations offer. Even though the operation of the market economy can be significantly
defective (for example because of asymmetric — and more generally imperfect — information),
which must be taken into account in making public policy, nevertheless there is no way of
dispensing with the institution of markets in general as an engine of economic progress. Using
markets is like speaking prose — much depends on what prose we choose to speak.
It is impossible to exist without the global market economyand the wide opportunities which the
market economy offers and so asking whether market economy can be used is utterly foolish.
Though the functioning of the market economy is defective, it cannot be dismissed away
because they are the tools of economic progress.
The market economy does not work alone in globalised relations — indeed it cannot operate
alone even within a given country. It is not only the case that a market-inclusive overall system
can generate very distinct and different results depending on various enabling conditions (such as
how physical resources are distributed, how human resources are, etc., and in each developed,
what rules of business relations prevail, what social security arrangements are in place, and so
on), but also these enabling conditions themselves depend critically on economic, social and
political institutions that operate nationally and globally. As has been amply established in
empirical studies, the nature of market outcomes is massively influenced by public policies in
education, epidemiology, land reform, micro-credit facilities, appropriate legal protectionsof
these fields there are things to be done through public action that can radically alter the outcome
of local and global economic relations. It is this class of interdependencies which we have to
invoke and utilise to achieve greater prosperity, more equity and fuller security.
The market cannot work aloe either in a global set or within a given country. It is inclusive in an
overall system and can generate very good results depending on the distribution of physical
resources and human resources, prevailing rules of business relations, social arrangements and
the social, economic and political institutions that work at the national and global level. the
market outcomes in impacted by public policies of education, distribution of people at a place or
coutry, land reforms aand small scale loan facilities. These involve the determination and action
of public and it can radically affect the way the market works and and its global and economic
relations. This is a network of interdependencies and this helps to ensure to greater prosperity,
more equity and fuller security.

Indeed, there can be a very positive role for the critical voice that the protest movements provide,
but the voice has to aim at real problems, not phantom ones. It is certainly true that global
capitalism is typically much more concerned with expanding the domain of market relations than
with, say, establishing democracy, or expanding elementary education, or enhancing social
opportunities of the underdogs of society. Mere globalisation of markets, on its own, can be a
very inadequate approach to world prosperity. In keeping that recognition constantly in focus,
scrutiny and protest can play a constructive part.
Opposition can be effective only when they focus on the right aspects and not the imaginary
ones. Existing Global market focuses mainly on expanding the trade relations rather than
insisting and ensuring democracy, providing education and equal opportunites to all. Focusing
on globalization of market alone cannot be very good approach to world prosperity. In this
regard, scrutiny and protest can help us go in the right direction.

Sharing global justice

The injustices that characterise the world are closely related to various omissions and
commissions that need to be overcome, particularly in institutional arrangements. Global policies
have a role here (for example in defending democracy, and supporting schooling and
international health facilities), but there is a need also to re-examine the adequacy of global
institutional arrangements. The distribution of the benefits in the global economy depends,
among other things, on a variety of global institutional arrangements, including trade
agreements, medical initiatives, educational exchanges, facilities for technological dissemination,
ecological and environmental restraints and fair treatment of accumulated debts, often incurred
by irresponsible military rulers of the past.
The injustices done with respect of globalization are the result of both omissions (not doing the
right thing) and commissions (doing the wrong thing) that happen in institutions around the
world. we need to examine the efficiency of the global institutional arrangements. The equal
distribution of depends on a nmber of thngs including trade agreement, medical help, educational
help, technological help, fair treatement of nature and ecology, and fair treatment of debts
incurred by foolish rulers of the past.

In addition to the momentous omissions that need to be rectified, there are also serious problems
of commission that must be addressed for even elementary global justice. These include not only
inefficient as well as inequitable trade restrictions that repress exports from the poorer countries,
but also patent laws which can serve as counterproductive barriers to the use of life-saving drugs
— vital for diseases like AIDS — and can provide inadequate incentive for medical research
aimed at developing non-repeating medicine, such as vaccines.
The omissions should be given importance. At the same time commissions should also be given
importance. Inefficient trade restrictions preventing export from poor countries (which prevent
them from improving their economy) and patenting life saving drugs (which make medicines
unaffordable to poorer people and and inadequate financial help to medical assistance should
also be avoided.

Another global ‘commission’ that causes intense misery as well as lasting deprivation relates to
the involvement of the world powers in the globalised trade in arms. This is a field in which a
new global initiative is urgently required, going beyond the need — the very important need —
to curb terrorism, on which the focus is so heavily concentrated right now. Local wars and
military conflicts, which have very destructive consequences (not least on the economic
prospects of poor countries), draw not only on regional tensions, but also on the global trade in
arms and weapons. The world economic establishment is firmly entrenched in this business: the
G-8 countries have been responsible for more than four-fifths of the international export of arms
and armaments for many years. The United States alone is responsible for about half the world
export of arms to other countries — nearly two-thirds of it to the developing countries. Indeed,
the world leaders who express deep frustration at the irresponsibility of anti-globalisation
protesters lead the countries that make the most money in this terrible trade.
Another serious commisiion which creates intense misery and everlasting depravation involves
globalised trade of arms. It is a very important to be focused on as it creates terrorism, which is a
threat to the whole world. a new initiative is required to prevent this trade of arms. This creates
local wars and military conflicts and develops tensions both at the local and the international
levels. This trade of arms is embedded in global businesses and G-8 countries play a major role I
this. US ir responsible for 50 % of arms export. In is shocking that the world leaders who are
upset that globalization is not understood by people are the ones who are actually preventing
those people from experiencing the benefits of globalization. It is they who profit more out of
this business.

If there is some difficulty in seeing that justice is being done in the global world, this is not just
an optical illusion. The task of global justice is a shared responsibility. It is a constructive
exercise that calls for political and social reforms as well as economic engagement. The market
mechanism is as good as the company it keeps.
There is real difficulty in making the people see globalization is good for all. This is a shared
responsibility. We should ensure global justice to all. It is a constructive task and needs both
political and social reforms. The market system will be good only as long as the company
maintains it well.