Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By

 

Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist.

Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their particular economic structures (which of course are inextricably linked to the Global North). Given that the subjugation and enslavement of a particular race propped up and enabled the South’s cotton production and subsequent economic success or that colonialism in Latin America and Africa served to establish the Global North’s successful capitalist economies, it is hard to imagine how the Global South could establish an equally successful capitalist economy without utilizing similar tactics. This is especially the case given that modern global policies already discriminate and inhibit the success of the Global South.

 

When considering such a history, one could imagine that the Global South would not only feel that they would need to employ similar discriminatory, cruel tactics for economic success, but also that they might feel justified in doing so. This issue often comes up when considering global carbon emission standards. Do third world countries have an obligation to follow international emission standards when a) the Global North’s has greatly economically benefitted from the overutilization of fossil fuels and b) the Global South has a disadvantaged economy that benefits from the utilization of fossil fuels?

 

Although the specific tactics that countries use to succeed and their morality might not fall into the consideration of justice on a distributive measure, which Táíwò considers, it does certainly make one consider how actions within one country might impact the decisions made in another country. Further, it invites us to consider how a global sovereign might go about accounting for different countries and the various strategies that they might use to succeed.

 

 

Comments

  1. SambhavMay 1, 2023 at 11:31 PM

    Super interesting blog post, Livia! I feel like it reminded me of Shelby a lot, and maybe one could make the case that the duties (global/civic obligations, maybe even some version of the principle of humanity?) that countries have to each other in terms of global carbon emissions standards may be overridden by the need to challenge and resist the existing social and economic order.

    Although, something I worry about about is what the "natural duties" look like for a state in the global south - the clear cut cases like outright war seem pretty straightforward to think about, but things like deterrence strategies by developing a nuclear arsenal, or economic practices that might exacerbate global inequalities become more complex.

    On one hand, these states might argue that such actions are necessary for their self-preservation and development within the current global order, but on the other hand, they could also perpetuate or even aggravate existing disparities and tensions between countries. It raises the question of whether the pursuit of national interests should take precedence over global cooperation and the broader goal of creating a more just and equitable world.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more