Trade Justice and the Least?Developed Countries*

In this article, we argue that least-developed countries (LDCs) should be treated as a distinct group from developing within theories of international justice generally, and trade more specifically. While authors the literature occasionally make passing reference to LDCs’ entitlement special favourable treatment other states, they say little about what form take, how such entitlements relate obligations their partners, both developed developing. This oversight is untenable because it overlooks significantly different needs LDCs have compared with respect economic opportunities afforded by markets. Moreover, grouping states into binary categories (or rich poor), theorists ended up obscuring over fundamental conflict between countries’ interests, weighing which central any complete normative evaluation regime. The article proceeds follows. Section II, introduce category countries, recognized basis for differential global regime order broadly, but typically subsumed political philosophers larger ‘developing countries’. We neglect distinctive features two broader shortcomings characterize much philosophical on justice, seek overcome in our subsequent discussion trade-based entitlements. III, well some wealthier duty help remedy extreme immiseration characteristic life actively diverting flows towards LDCs. suggest ought do so committing ensuring certain minimum percentage imports come label proposal ‘LDC quota’. IV note wide adoption an LDC quota would foreseeably harm are themselves very badly off. Nevertheless, absence better alternatives does not undermine basic case then raise refute several objections affected may quota. All told, presents novel conceptualization problems promising act upon duties last decade or so, writing increasingly shifted focus away big-picture debates whole analysis specific subsystems order. Few received attention regime.11 See e.g. C. Barry S. Reddy, International Trade Labour Standards (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008); J. Christensen, Justice (Oxford: Oxford 2017); A. James, Fairness Practice: A Social Contract Global Economy 2012); M. Risse G. Wollner, On Justice: Philosophical Plea New Deal 2019); F. R. Tesón, ‘Why free required justice’, Philosophy Policy, 29 (2012), 126–53; Walton, ‘Trade justice: argument integrationist, internal, principles’, Journal Political Philosophy, 28 (2020), 51–72. work has focused agents at might call ‘transactional’ level trade, where producers consumers exchange market, will restrict questions concerning ‘governmental’ level, author enforce rules shape terms trade.22 Below often talk ‘trading’ one another; taken shorthand states’ setting respective producers. Reflecting trends literature, recent generally been informed understanding only relevant also workings institutions Given empirically character work, surprising relative dearth challenges facing relation broadly. UN defines ‘low-income suffering most severe structural impediments sustainable development’,33 UN/DESA, Handbook Least Developed Country Category: Inclusion, Graduation Special Support Measures, 3rd edn (United Nations/Department Economic Affairs, 2018), p. 8. recognizes 46 such, based low gross national income per capita (below US$1,018), ‘human assets’ (nutrition, education, health stages), high vulnerability.44 UNCTAD, Countries Report 2019: 9: Present Future External Development Finance: Old Dependence, Challenges Nations Conference Development, 2019). must accept designation. Zimbabwe, example, not, even though meet each three criteria. Currently 13 cent world’s population live LDC, Sub-Saharan Africa, yet account barely 1 world GDP, around trade—and close 40 living less than US$1.90 day. (The reason represent higher tens millions people poverty large Nigeria India. greater 75 million categorized if criteria listed, grounds abilities generate domestic economies scale allow them development constraints faced smaller counterparts; see III.)55 Although, once state already threshold sufficient reclassified country. score lowest Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), Human (HDI), LDCs; put simply, widespread, intense, multidimensional these countries.66 UNDP, Beyond Income, Averages, Today: Inequalities 21st Century Program, Alkire Aguilar, ‘Least index (MPI)’ (Oxford Initiative, 2012), . Because this, given assistance regime, governance broadly.77 For overview, Category. They history acting concert another pursue shared interests; group, among durable active coalitions World Organisation (WTO).88 Priyadarshi T. Rahman, ‘Least-developed WTO: growing voice’, Narlikar, Daunton, Stern (eds), Organization pp. 275–300. all, definition, characterized similar mix poverty, human development, vulnerability, leads share set interests handicaps, worth noting there inequality prospects group: large, Pacific Island Asian closer graduating status African LDCs, meaning near future become overwhelmingly phenomenon. Despite coordinated activity WTO, urgency are, far aware, no articles owed specifically (as opposed to, say, badly-off generally).99 Though Aaron James briefly discusses issues consider here ‘Fortune fairness life’, Moral 14 (2017), 270–90, 280–1. Thanks anonymous referee directing this. Nor matter substantive major works justice. When acknowledged subset claims relegated periphery claims. To give indication take comprehensive produced years, James’s Practice, Mathias Gabriel Wollner’s Justice. works, ‘least-developed mentioned ten times; fewer involve points pertaining By contrast, hundred times (in case, almost times).1010 mirrored generally. Chris Armstrong’s introduction distributive instance, four times, twice quote WTO ministerial declaration; Armstrong, Distributive An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge 2012). There is, course, perfectly sensible explanation imputed we’ve noted above: namely that, when discuss countries’, mean include therein.1111 Something explicit about; 25. therefore think disingenuous contrast frequency ‘LDCs’ discussed, insofar whether categorize separate class merely semantic issue. Yet subsumption precisely problem want highlight: failing treating worse-off overlooked important considerations factor thinking failure adequately plight symptom general itself framed. Below, highlight problematic framings commonly adopted contribute of, things, LDC-specific many discussions analysed framework grouped ‘developed’ ‘developing’ just ‘rich’ ‘poor’ countries).1212 Justice, esp. 83–90; Practice; Loriaux Herwig, ‘International fairness, labour migration’, Politics, (2014), 289–313; Miller, Globalizing Ethics Power 2010), 69–83; 139–56; justice’. broad conclusions produce framing predictable enough: opportunities, expansive entitlements, developing/poor expense developed/rich capable absorbing absolute losses while nonetheless realizing satisfactory prosperity citizens. disagreements demanding assumption—rarely challenged—is moral who patients extensive permissions somewhat apposite, fails track way today, particularly diversity non-rich states. (at least) senses rich/poor capture current landscape. First, reside somewhere poles poor. every Norway Somalia, least Brazils, Colombias, Thailands, neither nor If assume) need, ability absorb costs helping others, middle-income diverge markedly those most- classify terms, find difficult action-guiding treat turn treated. second difference captured developed/developing binaries differing degrees agency power. like India China rich, (China upper-middle-income country, lower-middle-income country). long assignment responsibilities loosely tracks producing blocking outcomes, apparent super-sized bear quite responsibilities, power rather (only) wealth development. insight generalizes areas ethics. Take, vaccine distribution. largest COVID-19 vaccines. alone, distribution likely analogous levels wealth, importers. Or climate change. China’s India’s decisions decisively net-zero emissions target dramatic effects viability attractiveness all kinds green technology investments, plausibly ambitious commitments, accelerate plans fulfil emit equivalent amounts greenhouse gases capita. suggests need adopt fine-grained differences and, particular, capabilities, theorizing Obscuring capabilities simply perhaps obscures imperfect, indeed tragic, nature require its participants. below cases, necessarily directly countries. Sections III IV, fact means obligations. More specifically, examine trading partners commit providing ‘level playing field’ or, alternatively, ‘affirmative action’ enhance competitiveness. But stress weigh competing policy question hidden heterogeneity Before moving on, draw simplified prevalent literature: trade/protectionism binary. It commonplace analyse options primarily cases permissible free(r) policies else (more) protectionist ones.1313 ‘Dealing dictators’, 307–31; Goff, ‘The impact social Res Publica, 27 (2021), 59–76; 71; D. Moellendorf, Inequality Matters (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 90–105; Tesón Indeed, generality, can seen centring largely interplay rich/poor) hand, other, trade/protectionist policies. Determining portrayed drawing out policies, conversely, erect barriers shield own citizenry caprices outsiders something consensus (developed/developing trade/protection) play out. (under they’d LDCs) entitled being interest.1414 Brock, Cosmopolitan Account 222–32; life’; Matters. notable exception, he follows academic economists arguing poor implement them. held justified enacting against broadly policies; Richard Miller fairly typical justifying part certainly ‘impossible’, ‘extremely difficult’.1515 75. Justice; Matters; clear arguments present allowing apply obscured interact leaving difficulties aside, ‘orthodox’ consensus—that unilateral (close-to) zero-tariff As explain further below, interests. resources, productivity, infrastructure typically, geographic advantage having easier access markets, position exploit along. across board effectively favouring had market developed-country markets decades now. principle, boon states; after allows customers cheaper foreign And since small cannot support internal (see III). Yet, benefited relatively unrestricted not. despite duty-free markets,1616 Category, 30. covering 100 traded products, designation ‘LDC’ was introduced 1971 six graduated country’ status.1717 handful recommended graduation future. attests process be. pointedly, however, speaks orthodox toolkit done job facilitating record developing-country they’ve quixotic continuing commitment enough lift time soon. following sections, illustrate value paying worst-off face, full arsenal partners’ available responses impediments. facilitate neatly protectionist, diversionary character.1818 Strictly speaking, instrument have, use put. Whether depend whom shifting towards, motivation. States competitiveness state’s industries partially determined receive competitors. tilt field direction another, incumbent so. one, adversely adoption. section, divert minimal portion quota’, whereby acquiring imports, measured value, LDCs.1919 beyond scope essay determine precise right set, region 5% achievable medium term looking for. deleterious prospects, natural resources oil minerals count quotas. Such quotas artificial competitive labour-intensive manufacturing increasing returns scale.2020 few (mostly South-East Asian) managed direct made substantial progress meeting goals years. contingent African) commodity-export dependent, growth ‘closer zero’; 2014: Growth Structural Development: Post-2015 Agenda 2014), vii. P. Collier Venables, ‘Rethinking preferences: Africa exports’, Economy, 30 (2007), 1326–45. model envisage implementing akin Paris Climate Agreement, achieving target, left best target.2121 Two (1) (2) participating get target. Some governments choose partner improve infrastructure, ranging electricity supply customs procedures. Alternatively additionally), provide technical, legal, administrative complying country’s quality safety standards. Others decide attach negative tariffs goods imported making artificially cheaper. Ideally, could ready-made forum coordinating sharing (and worst) practice, holding accountable progress. However, coordination forthcoming, still coordinate others possible; impact. why sort explaining detail simple kind needed export products. Insofar inhabitants wages (considerably lower point in, Asia), economically attractive places manufacturers in. happened, happen because, Paul Krugman analysed, ‘spatial scale’, permitted market.2222 Krugman, revolution geography: 2008 Economics Nobel Prize lecture’, American Review, 99 (2009), 561–71. Economies businesses reduce through hiring cheap labour, easy chains, nearby workers specialized skills, good on. Spatial significant efficiency gains operating industrial cluster, compensate wage found elsewhere. although Asia were multiples Western Europe North America decades, 1970s especially early 1980s gap (around forty-fold difference) worthwhile individual leave agglomerations new ones. Once did clusters formed created efficiencies rapidly became remained America.2323 Collier, Bottom Billion: Why Poorest Are Failing What Can Be Done 2007), 82–3. Our agglomeration trap derives substantially Collier’s presentation, disagree implications. argues maintaining currently impose cutting (pp. 167–70). effect marginally tilting himself acknowledges, unlikely parti