Theory of Social Inequality and Social Justice Goes Global: The Accounts of Ulrich Beck and Nancy Fraser (original) (raw)
Related papers
Globalization and the Question of Social Justice
Sociology Compass (Wiley), 2014
ABSTRACT: Previous conceptions of social justice presupposed a closed political community in which nation-states were to be in full control of policy instruments that reinforced mechanisms of social justice. States’ governing capacity to deliver social justice to their citizens has been challenged in the face of deepening transnational interactions and interdependencies in economic, political, and cultural realms, as these interactions and interdependencies directly affect the lives of millions of people. This paper revisits an ongoing debate on Global Social Justice and aims to introduce two clashing views – namely, Minimalist and Cosmopolitan approaches – on whether or not people in affluent societies have distinctive duties of concern for people in less developed countries. After outlining the main contours of the arguments on both sides, the paper concludes by suggesting that the debate can inform different areas of sociological inquiry that are directly related to issues such as power, inequality, and social exclusion.
2015
The chapter is an introduction to the subject of global inequality. Simultaneously it is a reflection of different classical sociological approaches on social differentiation and of the current discourses on global social differentiation. Consequently, the sociological concepts of social differentiation are presented as three different lines of thought. Thereafter, the main theories of globalization are discussed in an effort to highlight the global forms of stratification. Although inequality plays a prominent role in nearly every book published on globalization, we argue that a comprehensive theory of globalization must account for the structural effects and large-scale changes of inequality on the micro and macro level. Building up on the famous distinction of Ronald Robertson (1992) we treat inequality as a culturally glocalized phenomenon, i.e. integrating both the global and the local effects of inequality to the analysis of global inequality. In a nutshell, we argue that globalization has two structural effects on social stratification. On the one hand, it creates glocal inequalities on a local level. On the other hand, it shapes the social structure on the global level. Consequently, the empirical dimensions of global inequality are displayed and contextualized in a final step. The chapter concludes by summarizing the consequences from the empirical analysis of global inequality for prospective globalization theory.
Global inequality and injustice
Journal of International Development, 2009
In this paper I shall argue that much of the existing global inequality is unjust, and that this injustice is not only because reducing inequality could serve the important goal of poverty reduction. I reject arguments of John Rawls and Thomas Nagel that limit the importance of distributive egalitarianism to states. I argue in contrast that a commitment to respect for human dignity has egalitarian distributive implications for the global economy. Injustice in the existing institutional order provides reasons for reforming the global institutional structure to reduce inequality.
Global Social Inequalities. Review Essay
The studies of global social and economic inequalities in social sciences that go beyond “methodological nationalism” are recent but have older roots. The first theories to reflect on the global and trans-regional interconnections and asymmetric regional developments within the capitalist system can be traced back to a Marxian tradition. These theories were critical to the conventional approach to social inequalities (hegemonic in the Western European and US academic centers in the 20th century) restricted to within nation-state boundaries. However, during the last three decades, several new approaches have emerged to capture the construction of social inequalities within the context of transnationalization, which extend beyond defined political units such as the nation-state. Transnationalization is creating a new challenge to social scientists to review critically their premises related to their reference units and to study social inequalities by focusing on social, economic, cultural and political interdependencies from the global perspective. This paper will focus specifically on four different approaches to global inequalities: (1) global and international comparative research; (2) the world-system perspective; (3) the transnational approach; and (4) the approach of entanglements. The aim is to draw a critical balance of these recent approaches, examine the central theoretical arguments and empirical findings, identify shortcomings and make suggestions for further research. Keywords: global inequalities | international and global comparison | world-system | transnationalism | approach of entanglements
European and Global Inequality
Imagine a world where no one suffered from severe material deprivation. This is a hypothetical world very different from our own. In this hypothetical world, a souped-up version of the Millennium Development Goals has already been attained; no country suffers from a persistent poverty trap; and everyone survives on the equivalent of at least a few dollars a day. Yet this is a world where the gap between rich and poor countries remains very large; where people in the poorest countries are still very poor; and where even in the richest countries, material inequality is pronounced. What duties of redistribution do members of rich countries have towards the members of poor countries in this hypothetical world? This question poses no problem at all for those who reject duties of redistribution at the domestic level. The libertarians' rejection of global redistribution simply carries over from their rejection of domestic redistribution. This question does, however, pose a problem for egalitarian liberals-particularly to those egalitarian liberals who stress the equal moral worth of all individuals. To be born in one of the world's poorest countries is to experience a level of inequality that sits uneasily with equal moral worth. This form of inequality does not disappear when the poorest countries have risen above the level of severe material deprivation. Yet rather than recognize the injustice of global inequality, many egalitarian liberals-most famously John Rawls-have argued that rich countries have no duties of redistribution to poor countries. These "anti-cosmopolitans" offer various arguments for refusing to recognize the
Social justice in globalisation
2019
In choosing the phrase “Globalization: Fatality or Utopia?” to name this conference [1], the organizers suggest two things: first, that we stand today at the brink of a major social transition; and second, that circumstances demand that we take up a stance toward this transition. I agree with both of these suggestions. Even if we cannot yet be sure how best to characterize the overall change, it is clear that epochal shifts are underway. One important shift, seen from the perspective of the “First World”, is from a fordist phase of capitalism, centered on mass production, strong labor unions, and the normativity of the family wage, to a postfordist phase, premised on niche production, declining unionization, and increased female labor-force participation. Another, related shift is from an industrial society, premised on the manufacturing technologies of the second industrial revolution, to what some have called call a “knowledge society”, premised on the information technologies of ...