Ethical debates Flashcards
Realist argument for ODA vs self interest of states
R argue st’s approach to aid should be driven by own NIs
- X externally set target for amt of aid given
- Aid should be given to st which best support donor st’s econ + security interests
- Aid should be given bilat, tied and in the form of loans to generate return on investment
e.g. UK (2021-) OR China
1. 2021 reduce ODA to 0.5% GNI bc prioritise own EP w COVID
2. #1 recipient = Pakistan –> sec interest bc nukes
3. 2/3 aid bilat + 90% contracts for aid proj funded by UK go to Brit cos
Cosmopolitan argument for ODA vs self interest of states
C argue st have an obligation to use aid as a tool to accelerate dev for the good of the gl comm
1. 0.7% GNI total aid (est in Monterrey Consensus 2002 + enshrined in 2030 Agenda 2015) bc this is amt needed to eradicate pov
2. 0.15-0.2% GNI aid → LDCs bc X access to FDI bc less attractive investment (lower return on investment + inc pol risk) e.g. 2013 only 1.9% FDI → LDCs vs 53.6% → MICs
3. Aid should be untied, ideally 100% grants and prov to multilat orgs bc more efficient (tied aid inc cost of proj 15-30% according to UN + debt = burden on budget → LT impact on QoL/emp)
e.g. UK (2015-20)
1. 2015 enshrined 0.7% in law
2. 2010-19 above 0.15% threshold (above 0.2% every yr except 2012)
Realist argument for differing strategies for the alleviation of poverty
Wash Consensus argues focus of dev should be on econ growth strategy thru free-market econ bc believes pov = purely econ cond
Fiscal discipline:
• Redirect public expenditure → fields w high econ return + potential to improve income distribution e.g. healthcare, primary edu, infrastructure
• Low govt borrowing
• Austerity
Trade liberalisation:
• Low tariffs
• No subsidies
• Liberalise inflows of FDI
• Deregulation
• Secure property (land + intel) rights
• Immediately exploit resources
• Privitise govt-owned institutions
e.g. IMF - Argentina
2018 $50bn loan w conditions:
- dec budget def 4.4% 2018-20
- inc tax
- austerity → cut $10bn from edu + healthcare + 1/2 govt ministries
in theory –> lower govt debt + grow GDP –> less pov
e.g. IMF/EU bailout for Gr 2015 austerity package:
- pub owned cos 6K→2K
- 8% additional cut on pub sector spending
- VAT inc
- 10% additional inc on all imported cars
Cosmopolitanist argument for differing strategies for the alleviation of poverty
Stockholm Consensus argues focus of development should be on soc objectives (health, edu, safety, security – food/water/environ, consumption and employment) thru balancing roles of market, govt + comm bc pov = social condition
- GDP = tool, X end goal → econ growth only matters if its used to achieve soc obj
- Dev must be inclusive – X leave behind any grp
- Environ protection = req
- Balance role of market, govt + comm – delegate responsibilies based on accessibility/ability to prov service (market should be regulated)
- LT econ stability = priority → invest in proj like infrastructure
- Tailor strategies to societal values → comm trust
- Developed st must fully participate in globalisation → poss for dev econ to compete – thru gaining access to tech/expertise etc
- Approach must be multi-lat/cohesive bw st to be effective → est frameworks for trade, migration etc
e.g. UN
SDGs measure development against 17 goals –> target simultaneous social, econ + environ development (Goal 1 = no pov, Goal 5 = gender eq, Goal 13 = climate action)
Realist argument for econ growth vs sustainable development
R prioritise econ growth bc builds st capacity to respond to environ issues + is most beneficial for emp → inc immediate QoL
- Econ growth allows comm to consume more goods/services → inc employment + ensures larger quantity of goods/services (health, edu) → inc QoL
- unethical to slow econ growth in favour of sus practices bc it leaves LDCs behind + keeps HIC advantage
e.g. IMF 2015 Gr bailout w EU
conditions req reduction in pub owned cos 6K→2K bc immediate $$$
Cosmopolitanist argument for econ growth vs sustainable development
C argue econ growth should X come @ cost of sus. Instead focus should be on dec inter/intragen ineq thru sus dev which X deplete resources + considers LT impacts
- 1987 Brundtland report – need to reduce amt of nat resources used per unit GDP
- Impov comm = forced to use environ in unsus ways → perpetuates wealth disp
- Sus approach will improve st’s ability to support itself in LT
e.g. new IMF
Adopted SDGs –>
- 2022 abandoned austerity cond for Argentina - instead support access to spending in 5 key areas (health, edu, w/s, rds, elec)
- est Platform for Collab on Tax (Goal 16 - peace + strong institutions)
- tech advice/support building strong institutions (Goal 16)
Realist argument for Obligations to asylum seekers and other refugees vs national interests including border security
States primary obligation is protecting its pop + terr so taking action that jeopardises this is unethical.
- Prioritise own citizens > protection of ref
e.g. Israel
response to S ref crisis = fortify Golan Heights border w barbed wire + landmines bc ref pop = undermined J maj –> risk NS (“secure our borders against Afr mig + Islamist militants” - Benj Net) - rejection of AS = X clearly forbidden in 1951 CRSR bc ambiguity around def of ref (esp what ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ means)
e.g. Australia
Op Sovereign Borders claim X violate A31 bc AS claim X verified + X come directly from st they’re fleeing
Cosmopolitanist argument for Obligations to asylum seekers and other refugees vs national interests including border security
States have a moral obligation to accept refugees and asylum seekers esp bc vulnerability.
- Using loopholes in 1951 CRSR = unethical bc ref = desperate + vulnerable
(2020 50% of the 82.4mil total Forcibly Displaced Ppl = children)
e.g. Jordan
June 2016 car bombing -> closed borders –> Oct 2018 #Opentheborders
Syr ref accepted = 51% children + 4% elderly
= prioritising protection fo ref > border sec
Realist argument for differing approaches regarding refugee resettlement
Ref RS programs should prioritise the NIs of host st –> advocate for small intake + rigorous screenings to ensure NS + EP
B/c “open door” policy –> jeapordises NS + EP –> unethical bc puts st’s #1 responsibility = own pop at risk
e.g. Australia
cap ref intake at 13750 bc want to “take due concern for security, medical and other issues” - Dutton
Cosmopolitanist argument for differing approaches regarding refugee resettlement
Ref RS programs in ‘third states’ should focus on maximising # of ref accepted
- 85% of ref live in dev st –> least capacity to deal w extra burden of ref pop
- 2018 UNHCR identified 20.4mil ref of concern but <1% RS
–> HICs have ethical responsibility to ref + pop of initial host st to contribute more
e.g. Canada
Syr ref crisis disprop impact st w smler econ e.g. J, T, Leb –> 2015 J Trudeu promise (part of election campaign) RS 25K Syr ref by end 2015 –> X achieved until Feb 2016 but rhetoric carried thru to 2018 when Ca = #1 RS (28K)
Realist argument for Rights of asylum seekers and other refugees vs economic migrants
Econ migrants should be prioritised but should not have the same rights once arrived
- Econ migrants = financial benefit bc can immediately fill identified skill gap vs ref = financial burden bc 1951 CRSR mandates access to prim edu (A22) + social assistance (A23)
e.g. Australia
2015/16 accept 810K econ mig vs 17.5K ref bc projected to add $9.7bn to econ in next 50 yrs - Econ migrants main purpose = further EP of host st –> st has X obligation to welfare bc priority = maximising EP
e.g. Qatar
seize passports to ensure emp in lucrative proj e.g. WC stadium
Cosmopolitanist argument for Rights of asylum seekers and other refugees vs economic migrants
Ref should be prioritised but once arrived in dest st all mig should have same standard of living rights as citizens
- Econ mig = voluntary whereas ref have “well-founded fear of persecution” as outlined in A1 of 1951 CRSR –> vulnerable + lack other options
- Econ mig = vulnerable to exploitation bc visa often tied to job
e.g. Australia 457 visa
–> 2015 4 Corners expose systematic underpayment of students at 7/11 stores
