Efficiency, entitlements and deservingness: Perspectives on international distributive justice

John A. Conybeare, University of Iowa

Abstract

The paper offers a three-fold typology for comparing and assessing arguments about the political economy of international distributive justice. Economists use aggregative criteria, specifying economic fairness as a subset of efficient allocations. The political philosopher suggests moral side constraints to place on distributions, a category that encompasses much recent scholarship, including the Rawls-Nozick debate. The third approach addresses the deservingness of different claimants to resources and issues of fair compensation, often in the context of specifying legal rules. Though these traditions are not uniquely international in focus, it is that aspect that is addressed here, both with respect to theoretical relevance to international affairs and practical applications to international redistribution, including specific arguments such as aid to poor countries and reparations for damages. The attractiveness of each group of arguments depends on the issue at hand and the goals of the proponent. Each offers independent but not mutually exclusive principles that might provide the basis for an integrated approach to international distributive justice.