DOCSLIB.ORG

Global Justice in a World of Nations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Global Justice in a World of Nations Sovereign Justice Sovereign Justice Global Justice in a World of Nations Edited by Diogo P. Aurélio, Gabriele De Angelis and Regina Queiroz De Gruyter An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org ISBN 978-3-11-021808-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ISSN 0179-0986 e-ISSN 0179-3256 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License, as of February 23, 2017. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnetISBN 978-3-11-024573-8 diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliogra- fie; detaillierte bibliografische Datene-ISBN sind im978-3-11-024574-5 Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: ©ISBN 2016 978-3-11-021808-4 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 Druck und Bindung:Sovereign Duck & Co.,justice : global Ortsname justice in a world of nations / edited by Diogo P. e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ♾ GedrucktAurélio, auf säurefreiem Gabriele De Papier Angelis, and Regina Queiroz. PrintedISSN 0179-0986 in Germany p. cm. e-ISSN 0179-3256 Proceedings of a conference held in Nov. 2008 in Lisbon, Portugal. www.degruyter.com Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-024573-8 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Justice--Congresses. 2. Cosmopolitanism--Congresses. 3. Nation-state- This work is -Congresses. licensed under I. Aurélio, the Creative Diogo Commons Pires. II. De Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Angelis, Gabriele. III. Queiroz, 3.0 License, as of February Regina. 23, 2017. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. JC578.S68 2011 Library of Congress 320.01‘1--dc22 Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.2010041720 Bibliografische BibliographicInformation derinformation Deutschen published Nationalbibliothek by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliogra- The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche fie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York © 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Druck und Bindung: Duck & Co.,Typesetting: Ortsname Michael Peschke, Berlin ♾ Gedruckt auf säurefreiemPrinting: Papier Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen Printed in Germany f Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 I. On Cosmopolitanism Kok-Chor Tan Nationalism and Global Justice: A Survey and Some Challenges ........ 9 Adam Etinson Cosmopolitanism: Cultural, Moral, and Political ................................ 25 Gabriele De Angelis Arguing for Justice. Global Justice and Philosophical Argumentation .............................................................. 47 II. Normative Theory Daniel Kofman Global and Statist Egalitarianism and Their Woes .............................. 87 Rekha Nath What is so Special about the State? ...................................................... 107 Sylvie Loriaux On the Applicability of the Ideal of Equality of Opportunity at the Global Level ......................................................... 127 Gianfranco Pellegrino Against Relational Views of Justice and Parental Duties ...................... 145 Regina Queiroz Cosmopolitanism, Sovereignty and Global Justice ............................... 161 III. On Kant & Rawls James Garrison On Kant’s Aesthetics and his Progressing Treatment of Peace ............. 177 Paulo Tunhas Rawls’ via media: Between Realism and Utopianism ........................... 197 Milica Trifunovic Rawls’s The Law of Peoples as a Guideline for the World as We Know It .............................................................. 207 vi Contents IV. Economic Justice Heiner Michel Towards Fair Terms of Economic Cooperation ................................... 221 Paulo Barcelos Whip Cosmopolitanism into Shape: Assessing Thomas Pogge’s Global Resources Dividend as an Instrument of Global Justice ....................... 241 About the Contributors ...................................................................... 251 Subject Index ...................................................................................... 253 Index of Names ................................................................................... 257 Introduction This volume collects papers presented at the conference on Global Justice and the Nation State, held in Lisbon in November 2008 with the support of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology. The confer- ence was part of a larger research project, still in progress, which tries to consider the idea of global justice against the background of the recent rise of transnational terrorism. It aimed chiefly at pondering on the challenge that thinking about “justice beyond borders”, as Simon Caney calls it, represents to the existing international order. Bibliography about this matter has been increasing over the last 20 years. Until the end of the 1980s politicians, theorists and scholars thought of global justice as if it were an exclusively moral issue. For in- stance, A Theory of Justice (1971), the most famous work of John Rawls, does not discuss the question of a fair international distribution of the world’s wealth, assuming instead that the principles of justice are devel- oped just for a more or less closed space, in which social cooperation is feasible and can be implemented. Between states the author endorsed, at best, a respectful relationship, regardless of their regimes. So, when the Cold War ended and the countries living under the communist political influence became once again independent nations, Rawls’ book, linking nationalism and justice, seemed to present a very suitable theory. However, by that time, globalization was already increasing, not only because of the new technologies, which made possible a free and fast communication among the people of all countries, but also because of a deeper awareness of several global problems whose solution was impossible to achieve only at a national level. In a word, we were facing global chal- lenges and owning new means to face them. So, the idea of a cosmopoli- tan government might seem, at least to some people, as feasible as the international trade of agricultural goods, technology and knowledge. De- spite the rebirth of the old nationalist feelings in Eastern Europe after the end of proletarian internationalism, the cosmopolitan idea was reborn as well, both in Political Theory and in common political discourse. When the upsurge of nationalisms started sparking new conflicts – such as the wars in the Balkans after the disintegration of Yugoslavia – people looked at the United Nations, for the first time in their history, not only as an international forum with moral authority, but also as a kind of legal and 2 Introduction political power, which should claim the right to rule the world and to punish the «rogue states», if necessary militarily. That was the time after the fall of the wall, when the European Union was growing quickly, and the world seemed to become just one single globalised space. No wonder so many articles and books have been published contending that the sov- ereign state, at least as we have known it over the last three centuries, had already become useless, even if we do not know yet which political form could fulfil the functions that the state has been fulfilling until now. How far is this really true? This is the axis around which some of the most in- teresting debates in contemporary Political Theory are being developed, as well as the main question dealt with in this book. In fact, if we agree that some kind of universal or global realm will be possible, we have, from an either moral or political point of view, to face two kinds of problems. The first one, and certainly the hardest, is transfer- ring sovereignty from national states to a so-called international commu- nity: does it mean the end of the state, both national and multinational, as some people claim, or simply a change in its functions, or to make it sub- ject to some kind of super power which will provide the back-up for the enforcement of global justice? The second kind of problems deals with the principles according to which that allegedly universal realm should be governed: are there any moral principles overcoming the local cultures supporting national values, rights and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Page 55 'SAVING the GREATEST NUMBER' THOM BROOKS Imagine
    “05brooks” i i 2004/3/16 page 55 i i Logique & Analyse 177–178 (2002), 55–59 `SAVING THE GREATEST NUMBER' THOM BROOKS Imagine there are three boats equidistant from one another. You are alone in the first boat. The other two boats are sinking fast: one boat has one person (A), the other has two persons (B&C). There is only enough time to allow saving either A or B&C before their boats sink, drowning whoever is onboard.1 `As far as common-sense morality is concerned, one's duty as rescuer, under the circumstances, is a straightforward matter: one ought to save the greatest number' (Kumar 2001: 165). In this example, one reason in favour of saving B&C and not A is the Kamm-Scanlon argument, a contractualist framework without any commit- ment to aggregating various outcome values nor a combination of individual claims for rescue.2 If the claims of A, B, and C are accorded equal and positive weight, Michael Otsuka contends that the Kamm-Scanlon argument `considers C's claim in combination with B's claim so that they together tip the balance in favor of saving B and C' and not A (2000: 290–91; cf Scan- lon 1998: 232–33). C's presence in B's boat makes the difference between saving A or B&C. For Otsuka, the assertion that `C has a claim to be saved by virtue of an appeal to the difference that B and C make when considered together or in combination rather than one by one' amounts to an `appeal to the claim of a group of individuals' (2000: 292).
    [Show full text]
  • Religion, Ethics, and Poetics in a Tamil Literary Tradition
    Tacit Tirukku#a#: Religion, Ethics, and Poetics in a Tamil Literary Tradition The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Smith, Jason William. 2020. Tacit Tirukku#a#: Religion, Ethics, and Poetics in a Tamil Literary Tradition. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Divinity School. Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37364524 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use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
    [Show full text]
  • The Metaphysical Case Against Luck Egalitarianism the Metaphysical Case Against Luck Egalitarianism ESJP #4 | 2013 Willem Van Der Deijl
    Erasmus Student Journal of Philosophy Willem van der Deijl | The Metaphysical Case against Luck Egalitarianism The Metaphysical Case against Luck Egalitarianism ESJP #4 | 2013 Willem van der Deijl Luck egalitarianism is the name of a group of theories of justice that company in the world, he is entitled to fully enjoy the fruits of his fortune. subscribes to the idea that a just society compensates for brute luck, but Similarly, if a person decides to use all his money to buy lottery tickets 22 does not compensate for bad outcomes that fall under the responsibil- and loses, luck egalitarianism holds that a society does not have any duty ity of the agent himself. Notable defenders of versions of the theory are to compensate this unfortunate person for his bad luck. Dworkin (2000) Dworkin (2000) and Cohen (1989). It has been argued that this concep- makes a useful distinction in this respect. ‘Brute luck’ is the kind of luck tion depends on a libertarian account of free will. However, Carl Knight over which we do not have control. For instance, a person born with a (2006) has argued that luck egalitarianism is also a plausible view under handicap does not have control over his condition and its consequences, compatibilist accounts of free will. In this essay I argue that defenders of while a person who gambles all his money and loses has bad ‘option luck’: this view fail to distinguish between what Scanlon (1998) calls attribu- the kind of luck over which one does have control. Dworkin argues that in tive and substantive responsibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Principles of Bioethics: Facing the Consequences of Fundamental Moral Disagreement
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2012v11n1p13 BEYOND THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOETHICS: FACING THE CONSEQUENCES OF FUNDAMENTAL MORAL DISAGREEMENT H. TRISTRAM ENGELHARDT (Rice Universtiy / USA) ABSTRACT Given intractable secular moral pluralism, the force and significance of the four principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice) of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress must be critically re-considered. This essay examines the history of the articulation of these four principles of bioethics, showing why initially there was an illusion of a common morality that led many to hold that the principles could give guidance across cultures. But there is no one sense of the content or the theoretical justification of these principles. In addition, a wide range of secular moral and bioethical choices has been demoralized into lifestyle choices; the force of the secular moral point of view has also been deflated, thus compounding moral pluralism. It is the political generation of the principles that provides a common morality in the sense of an established morality. The principles are best understood as embedded not in a common morality, sensu stricto, but in that morality that is established at law and public policy in a particular polity. Although moral pluralism is substantive and intractable at the level of moral content, in a particular polity a particular morality and a particular bioethics can be established, regarding which health care ethics consultants can be experts. Public morality and bioethics are at their roots a political reality. Keywords: Bioethics. Pluralism. Moral disagreement. Ethical particularism. RESUMO Dado o pluralismo moral secular intratável, a força e o significado dos quatro princípios (autonomia, beneficência, não maleficência e justiça) de Tom Beauchamp e James Childress precisam ser reconsiderados criticamente.
    [Show full text]
  • Grotius and Kant on Original Community of Goods and Property
    grotiana 38 (2017) 106-128 GROTIAN A brill.com/grot Grotius and Kant on Original Community of Goods and Property Sylvie Loriaux Département de science politique, Université Laval, Quebec [email protected] Abstract This paper is interested in the critical potential of the idea of original common possession of the Earth. On the basis of a comparative analysis of Hugo Grotius and Immanuel Kant, it shows how different the meaning of this idea can be within a theory of property or territory. The first part is devoted to Grotius’s account of why and how the institution of property was progressively introduced. It highlights the importance this account attaches to the intention of the first distributors for a good understand- ing of property laws, and in particular, for an understanding of their non-application in situations of extreme necessity. The second part takes the opposite path and shows that although Kant rejects the very existence of a right of necessity, the idea that one might be liberated from a law is not completely absent from, and even plays a crucial role in, his account of property. Clarification of this role ultimately leads us back to the idea of original possession in common of the Earth. Keywords Hugo Grotius – Immanuel Kant – original community of goods – necessity – permissive law – property rights * The author would like to thank the journal’s anonymous referees and editor for their very helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. She would also like to thank the participants in the Workshop on Grotius’s Place in the History of Moral and Politi- cal Thought (Leuven, 2017) and in the Workshop on Private Property and Territorial Rights (Bayreuth, 2017) for illuminating discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Charles Taylor and George Grant on the Problem of Instrumentalism: Expressivism and Justice As Alternative Ontologies
    CHARLES TAYLOR AND GEORGE GRANT ON THE PROBLEM OF INSTRUMENTALISM: EXPRESSIVISM AND JUSTICE AS ALTERNATIVE ONTOLOGIES Carlos Colorado Bachelor of Arts, Simon Fraser University, 2001 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Under Special Arrangements in the Faculty of Arts O Carlos Colorado 2004 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY August 2004 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Carlos Colorado Degree: Master of Arts Charles Taylor and George Grant on the Problem of Title of Thesis: Instrumentalism: Expressivism and Justice as Alternative Ontologies Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Jonathan C. Driver Dean of Graduate Studies Dr. Ian Angus Senior Supervisor Professor Department of Humanities Dr. David Laycock Supervisor Professor Department of Political Science Dr. Samuel LaSelva External Examiner Professor Department of Political Science University of British Columbia Date Approved: &b! 208~ Partial Copyright Licence The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Nations and Global Justice
    Nations and Global Justice Paul DUMOUCHEL 要旨：国境と境界 本論は，グローバル正義論が古典的な社会的正義論と三つの基本的前提を共有していること を論じる。第一の前提は，個人の道徳的な重要性である。第二の前提は，共通の制度的な戦略 である。第三の前提は，政治と社会的正義との関係についての共通の理念である。それらの理 論が適用されるそれぞれのコンテキストは異なっている。社会的正義論の場合は閉じた社会で あり，グローバル正義論の場合は独立国家の多元性によって特徴付けられた国際的な状況であ る。この根本的なコンテキストの違いを考えれば，この共通の三つの前提，特に最後の前提は， グローバルなコンテキストにおける正義の問題を正しく理解するための主要な妨げとなってい る。 Keywords : 社会的正義，グローバル正義，国民国家，ロールズ，普遍性，国民の同質化， 政治的正義 Global and social justice Proponents of global justice, for example, Thomas Pogge, Kok-Chor Tan, Charles Beitz, Gillian Brock, or Henry Shue, argue in favor of a strictly liberal foundation for global justice. １） According to them, global justice consists in equal justice for every one independently of who he or she is, without any consideration of race, gender, ethnic origin or of where he or she happens to have been born. Just as liberals consider that skin color or gender should not have any incidence on peoples’ claim to equal justice, global liberals argue that the place of birth, for example, Sierra Leone rather than Japan, is arbitrary from a moral point of view, and therefore that it should not enter into account when we try to determine a person’s rights or entitlements. Yet, arbitrary as this difference may be, in the world in which we live, the nation one belongs to clearly has far reaching consequences on a person’s opportunities, welfare or rights. It is this difference between the equal rights which, from a moral and normative point of view, all individuals share and the real inequalities that exist at the global international level that motivates proponents of global justice. From the liberal individualistic point of view, nationality – where one happens to have been born – is a morally irrelevant accident.
    [Show full text]
  • Augustine and Political Theory: Dialogue Or Dialectic?
    AUGUSTINE AND POLITICAL THEORY: DIALOGUE OR DIALECTIC? Monday, April 16, 2018 Prospect House, Princeton University A public workshop presented by The James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University Cosponsored by The University Center for Human Values, Princeton University Recent scholarship in political theory displays a considerable interest in Augustine’s thought. This conference workshop aims to deepen this scholarship, by probing how political theorists develop accounts of modernity and republicanism, political theology, and contemporary theory through positive or negative readings of Augustine’s thought. Undoubtedly, much recent scholarship is post- Rawlsian. Either it seeks to apply insights Augustine has on concepts Rawlsian liberalism deems integral to sustaining pluralistic societies, such as fairness. Or, it argues that to sustain pluralistic societies, Rawlsian liberalism must include concepts of civic virtue, care, and love found in Augustine. While these lines of enquiry are fruitful, they take the framework of Rawlsian liberalism as a given without probing its foundations. Addressing these foundations, this workshop explores themes in republicanism, political theology, and modern political theory, with Augustine as its guide. For Rawlsian political theory, the concern with the civil and religious unrest of the 17th century demands that common political life be sustained by the idea of an overlapping consensus, which does not make reference to comprehensive doctrines. Hence the modern problem of religious violence impels a defense of a modern ideal of public reason. But critics of political liberalism ask whether this account of modernity is adequate. What claims does modernity make about human beings, politics, and God? What understanding of modernity should inform future political theory? It is here where political theorists reveal how they stand toward Augustine’s deepest themes.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics 4206F/9762A, Philosophy 9117A: Theories of Global Justice 2018-9
    Politics 4206f/9762a, Philosophy 9117a: Theories of Global Justice 2018-9. Thursday 11.30-1.30, SSC 4112. Instructor: R. Vernon, SSC 4216, office hours Monday 1-3 and other times by arrangement. ([email protected]) A seminar on some of the main theories of/issues in global justice in recent political theory. Part I introduces the two main theoretical perspectives, cosmopolitan and nationalist. and discusses global distributive justice (i.e. issues of wealth, poverty, inequality). Parts II and III look briefly at issues of retributive and reparative justice (i.e. punishment and compensation). Assignments: 1. 4206a: An essay, 12/15 pages, due on April 6, worth 70%. Late penalty 2% per day. Normally the essay will be on one of the week’s topics, drawing on the set readings plus the supplementary reading for that week. 9762a/9121a: as above, but the essay should be 15-20 pages. 2. A weekly one-page (single-spaced) report summarizing what you take to be important in the two set readings, to be handed in at the seminar. There is no mark for this assignment, but students who fail to submit at least 8 reports during the term will not be eligible for a participation mark. The report is simply intended to ensure that members of the group are in a position to exchange views about the readings. 9726a/9121a: as above, but the weekly report is to be 1.5 pages (single- spaced) and must cover the supplementary reading for the week in addition. 3. Participation mark: 30%. This is a seminar course and it works only if everyone does their best to contribute to discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Prelim Test 2
    48th Annual ISA Convention Chicago, IL Feb. 28th - March 3rd, 2007 “Politics, Policy and Responsible Scholarship” J. Ann Tickner, 2007 ISA President Andrei Tsygankov, 2007 ISA Program Chair ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Preliminary Program Updated on 3/2/2007 at 7:06:30 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WA01 Wednesday 8:30 - 10:15 AM Engaging Contemporary Discourses and Practices of Exception Sponsors Cooperative Organizations International Political Sociology European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) Coop Org Panel Chair(s) Didier Bigo Institut d'Études Politiques Paris Michael Loriaux Northwestern University Justice and Sovereignty: In Whose Name? Elspeth Guild Radboud University Nijmegen Political Agency and Human Rights in the Context of the Politics of Security Vivienne Jabri King's College London Sovereignty, State Law and International Law RBJ Walker University of Victoria The Field of the Professionals of (In)security and the Logics of Resistance Didier Bigo Institut d'Études Politiques Paris Xenophobia, Terrorism and Iimmigration: the Neo-Conservative Agenda in Australia David Camroux Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales Discussant(s) Alex Macleod Université du Québec à Montréal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WA02 Wednesday 8:30 - 10:15 AM Security, Knowledge,
    [Show full text]
  • Contractualism
    Contractualism Jussi Suikkanen Final author copy; To be published in Michael Hemmingsen (ed.): Ethical Theory in Global Perspective (SUNY Press). Introduction There is a long historical tradition of trying to understand morality in terms of a contract. The core idea in this tradition is that what is right and wrong is in some way grounded in either what we have agreed to do or in what we could be expected to agree to in some hypothetical circumstances. This contractualist way of thinking goes back to at least Ancient Greece (Plato, The Republic, 358e–359b), but it really became the prominent way of thinking especially about our political obligations during the Early Modern period through the social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes (1996 [1651]), John Locke (2002 [1689]), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1997 [1762]). Contractualism is not, however, merely a historical tradition, but rather it continues to be a popular approach. In political philosophy, many debates concerning justice still tend to take John Rawls’s (1971) contractualism as their starting point. Similarly, in moral philosophy, different ways of developing the basic contractualist insights are at the centre of several key theoretical debates (Gauthier 1986, Scanlon 1998, Southwood 2010, and Parfit 2011). That so many people have approached morality through the idea of a contract for over two millennia suggests that the contractualist framework must be getting something right. Yet, as we will see below, the devil will be in the details. 1 For the sake of simplicity, this chapter focuses on just one contemporary formulation of contractualism – the version outlined by T.M.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Permaculture and Anarchism in Global Justice Movements in New Zealand
    AN ALTERNATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: A STUDY OF PERMACULTURE AND ANARCHISM IN GLOBAL JUSTICE MOVEMENTS IN NEW ZEALAND By Tazia Gaisford A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Development Studies Victoria University of Wellington 2011 2 Abstract This study is a response to calls for alternatives to development by post- development authors and critics of post-development alike. It asks “can the praxis of permaculture and anarchism provide an alternative to development?” Although alternatives to development arguably do not exist untouched by the dominant development paradigm, it is possible to imagine and to create the different possible organisations based on principles of mutual aid, direct action and self-management. Anarchism as a politically focused social philosophy and permaculture as an ecologically focused design philosophy are mutually beneficial in strengthening each other. The combined analysis of alternatives to development uses case studies in the Wellington Region, primarily Climate Camp Aotearoa, with permaculture and anarchist principles, and contributes another perspective to the post-development debate. The two approaches share converging central ethics, principles and struggles of praxis. They recognise that transformative change is necessary. Whether it is called a cultural revolution, transition or paradigm shift, the underlying recognition is that we need to live more harmoniously with each other and the natural environment by creating diverse post-industrial societies. Many tools, principles and processes advocated by alternative development and post-development are the same. However, the combination of those tools, principles and processes, and how they are designed and applied in relation to each other systemically, are significant in determining whether or not the intent is that of an alternative to development.
    [Show full text]