Xavier Rambla Sociologia

Does Nancy Fraser’s three-dimensional definition of global justice account for all the relevant issues? Philosopher Nancy Frazer proposed a three-dimensional definition of cosmopolitan justice that takes into account a wide array of concerns. Maybe you find some suggestions in her work. She proposes to distinguish distribution (e.g. Piketty’s global wealth tax, Tobin’s tax on financial transactions), recognition (e.g., rights of ethnic minorities, multilingualism, LGBT rights) and participation (global civil society, deliberative development)

Albeit difficult, the distinction between the influence of power in defining the MDGs and the normative underpinning of the MDGs is very helpful. We can discuss if these goals are grounded on human rights, capabilities or justice, and have arguments to both agree (e.g. with Amartya Sen or Martha Nussbaum) or to disagree. Some critics argue that “development” is a Western discourse that disrupts native political projects in the Global South (e.g. Arturo Escobar and Vandana Shiva). Crucial to the social analysis of development is the observation that the empirical evidence that politics has been at stake does not automatically refute the normative theories on global justice. Some authors propose to recognise a complex and multi-lateral ecology of knowledges but not necessarily to conclude that any claim concerning validity is so consistent as any other one. There is no point in conflating the appraisal of validity with the analysis of the social relations embedded in knowledge. Such an intellectual operation is neither  coherent in logical terms nor respectful of cultural diversity in ethical terms.

Hans Rosling and Richard Wilkinson clearly show that development cannot be reduced to the GDP per capita. Despite some very general correlations, public health does  not only depend on economic growth. Moreover, compelling evidence unveils the harmful effects of inequality for public health. So, public health does not only depend on biological factors or material power but also on the political economy. Power relations dramatically impinge so much on political decision-making and economic distribution that eventually have consequences for public health.