Name: Bhawna,

[Roll No. 1139],

Response Assignment- 2 for CPT on the Theme of Globalisation and cosmopolitanism

Submitted to prof. Ashok Acharya

Institutional Remedies for Rising Global Inequalities: A Cosmopolitan Analysis

Introduction: In the contemporary world, inequalities are rising and these rising inequalities
arise from the asymmetrical processes of economic disparities at global level, that is why there
is an urgent and substantial need of institutional remedies. Various scholars on globalisation
have argued that how the contemporary globalisation is “one-dimensional” and that always
tries to prioritise the internationalisation of economic affairs, capital, finance, and trade while
neglecting the corresponding development of democracy, environmental norms, and socio-
cultural rights. (Went, 2004). That is why there is a strong need of institutional remedies, which
can shift the focus of globalisation from economic centric approach to reformulating the “basic
structure of international society” (Beitz, 2005)

This response assignment will be exploring, why these institutional remedies are important to
change the nature of globalisation from economic-centric to socio-political and environmental
necessities. This assignment will also evaluate their feasibility and projected goals and analyses
the relevant case studies that illustrate the importance of these reforms.

Summary of Key Arguments for Institutional Remedies: Globalisation and cosmopolitan

debates are as important as other theories and concepts are. When we look at the debate on
cosmopolitanism, global justice and how institutional remedies is necessary for eradicating
inequalities at global level among all the nation-state then one will notice the pattern for
instance cosmopolitanism not just focus on single aspect but on bundle of overlapping concepts
such as ethical, political, and personal on the other hand globalisation just focus on economic
aspect. Even people who strongly believes in the idea of “world citizenship” are not usually
from the most globalised or affluent countries in-fact they come from the very less globalised
and less affluent countries or societies like those of African and south-east Asian. So, there is
need of institutional remedy which will bring firstly bring political cosmopolitanism the kind
of institutional reform which supports international cooperation and shared governance, which
seems to flourish in places which are more connected through global networks. There is also
need of ethical cosmopolitanism, which is about openness and tolerance, which does not
depend much on globalisation. (Pichler, 2011)

Robert went gives another sharper angle. He argues that globalisation is a kind of “one
dimensional” form of economic internationalisation essentially based on capitalism. He talks
about a “global straitjacket” that traps state in such a way that they have no control on their
own decision because they can not protect their citizens social and democratic rights and if they
try to protect then they might lose their grip on global markets. So, went emphasises on such
kind of remedy which flip this order completely opposite or upside down and insist that
globalisation should only happen if it helps to strengthens democracy and social justice, not
weaken them. (Went, 2004)

There is a more philosophical view on cosmopolitanism which talks about the three pillars,
universality, generality, and individualism. These should be the core aspect of globalisation
because they are foundational and the base of whole society at international level. Because if
addressed them properly then we can bring equality among every individual and extend it
across borders. It is a kind of moral stance which makes global injustice not just regrettable,
but fundamentally wrong. (Pogge, 1992)

Delanty, however, see cosmopolitanism in a distinct way, he said that it is not just a moral
vision, rather in globalising world cosmopolitanism is a kind of process that grows the
interaction among people, how they learn and connect. Global inequalities can only be
eradicated if people start to focus on new formations and when their curiosity turns into
empathy and eventually into institutions. Cosmopolitanism works on different levels from mild
cultural openness for example liking foreign food or travel to a deeper form that helps reshape
global institutions. (Delanty, 2014)

Brock gives us totally different picture of cosmopolitanism; she draws a helpful distinction
between moral and institutional cosmopolitanism, the former is about principles, and the latter
is about putting those principles into action. There is this debate about: should global justice
focus on basic equality or should it try to eradicate inequality at deepest level. Some argues
that the cosmopolitanism only works within the coercive framework of the state. Although
Brock pushed back against this thought and states that coercion and interdependence already
existed at the international level for example the kind of financial system and trade rules we
have, they clearly show the true nature or reality of globalised world. (Brock, 2013)

Beitz, makes a similar point but adds that moral cosmopolitanism, while vital, does not
automatically tell us what kind of world institutions we need. He is wary of jumping to the idea
of a world government. Instead, he argues that reforming the global “basic structure” the
economic, legal, and political systems that shape life chances is where cosmopolitan ethics
should bite. For example, the rules governing global trade or finance affect justice far more
than direct aid flows do. Beitz wants those global regimes to be held accountable to democratic
standards because, as they stand, they often wield immense power without much responsibility.
(Beitz, 2005)

Finally, Margaret strikes a note of caution. She argues that cosmopolitan ideals like global
equality of opportunity, while noble, can clash with the moral value of distinct political
communities. National boundaries, she suggests, are not just lines on a map, they are the
framework that makes self-government and democratic autonomy possible. If we push too far
toward global equality, we might end up with a centralised world state, which, in her view,
risks concentrating power dangerously. So, for Moore, the challenge is balancing global
moral commitments with the political spaces that allow people to govern themselves. (Moore,
2006)

Taken together, these thinkers sketch a rich, sometimes uneasy picture of cosmopolitanism: it
is a moral ideal, a social process, and a political project but also a field full of unresolved
tensions between global equality, democratic autonomy, and institutional possibility.
Evaluation of Arguments and Remedies: The institutional remedies face substantial debates
regarding their scope, the challenge posed by national sovereignty, and the attribution of causal
responsibility for poverty.

The Scope of Global Distributive Justice- Cosmopolitan theorist argues or debate on the fact
that whether the institutional remedies should focus on “sufficiency” (meeting basic needs and
human rights) or stronger “equality” (eradication of related inequalities). As the goal of human
rights protection have been already recognised at international level but still there is gap
between the principles and practical aspect of this because stronger goals like achieving global
equality of opportunity is still missing and it is necessary to eliminate disadvantage on the
“moral arbitrariness of birthplace” (Brock, 2013)

A primary philosophical critique of globalisation has a concern about the feasibility of strong
reform, specifically whether it will create the problem of undesirable outcome of a global
world. Critique of globalisation also dismisses the idea or proposal of “global federalism”
because they are in doubt that it will create a condition like “pie in the sky”. They also are
criticising this because there might be risk of oppression and tyranny due to the concentration
of power in developed countries. That is why these critiques emphasise that strong global
institutions risk denying political autonomy and local attachment to political units. (Went,2005,
Moore, 2006)

The Challenge of Statist Arguments: The supporter of statist or state strongly oppose the idea
of expansive institutional remedies. Because they argue that egalitarian distributive justice can
only be implemented within the territory of state. Egalitarian statists rely on arguments that
coercion, joint authorship of laws, or social cooperation trigger duties of egalitarian justice
among competitive conditions, which they argue are absent of insufficient at the global level.
(Brock, 2013). Cosmopolitans counter that the fundamental moral equality of individuals
means that boundaries cannot legitimately limit the scope of justification (Pogge, 1992,). They
argue that global institutions already generate significant coercion or involve sufficient
interaction that binds the establishment of fair terms and institutional arrangements to secure
those terms. (Brock, 2013).

Causal Responsibility for Poverty: The necessary extent of institutional remedies depends
partly on whether the sources of inequality are viewed as primarily domestic or global. Rawls
(1999) argued that sources of poverty are largely domestic (e.g., political culture, population
policy), implying that effective solutions must be internal to the society (Beitz, 2005,)

Conversely, Pogge, argues the global order perpetuates and worsens existing poverty through
institutional mechanisms like the international privileges. If this is true, affluent countries
receive help from an unjust system they helped to prove and thus bear a strong duty of redress
or reform derived from the duty not to harm (This view demands radical institutional overhaul.

Case Studies and Analyses of Institutional Remedies: The failure of one-dimensional

internationalisation and the subsequent emergence of counter-movements provide concrete
cases illustrating the necessity and challenges of the proposed institutional remedies.

1. The Discipline of the "Golden Straitjacket": The Brazilian Debt Crisis

The period leading up to the 2002 Brazilian presidential election showed how global finance
can impose the "golden straitjacket" on democratic choice. International financial markets,
fearing the left-wing candidate Lula da Silva, pushed Brazil toward economic crisis by
increasing the risk premium on loans (Went, 2004,).

Analysis: George Soros observed that in the modern capitalist system, the American financial
agents "vote, the Brazilians don't vote".The subsequent intervention by the IMF, which
attached unusually tough conditions ("confine..in a plaster cast") to a major loan, confirmed
the effective curtailment of the capacity for social investment by the newly elected government
This case clearly illustrates the necessity of democratising global governance to ensure
supranational institutions do not exclusively facilitate capital expansion but rather incorporate
political justice (Went, 2004).

2. Resistance to Corporate Internationalisation: The MAI Failure

The failure to implement the OECD's Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) serves as
a successful case study of pushback against institutional changes favouring capital. The MAI
sought to codify extensive rights for investing companies globally, furthering the
internationalisation of production capital (Went, 2004).

Analysis: The agreement failed because skeptical global social movements successfully
challenged its proponents, demanding that social and ecological needs be prioritised over the
expansion of international trade (Went, 2004). This demonstrates that transformative
institutional changes, such as making further economic integration conditional on respecting
social and environmental rights, can be driven by collaboration between state-centered
institutions and global civil society movements (Went, 2004).

3. Accountability Voids while policy making: TRIPS and Trade Regimes

Failures in international policy making, such as the intellectual property agreement (TRIPS) or
restrictive agricultural trade preferences, highlight the need for institutional mechanisms that
secure procedural fairness for all affected parties (Beitz, 2005).

Analysis: These rules, prejudicial to poor societies, were adopted through processes where
resources were distributed unequally and mechanisms for accountability were lacking (Beitz,
2005). This demands institutional remedies that establish clear sites of accountability within
global governance structures (Beitz, 2005,). Furthermore, the emergence of transnational
activism in response to such failures reflects a wider socio-cognitive shift among critical
publics, showing an enhanced consciousness of global [Link] capacity to "see
connections between phenomena" is fundamental to generating claims for global justice and
needs the "de-internationalisation" of the state's policy response (Delanty, 2014).

The strong and urgent institutional remedies demanded by rising global inequalities are
fundamentally transformative, requiring both the regulation of global economic flows (through
reforms like adjusting international privileges) and the democratisation of global political
structures (through accountability and conditional integration) (Beitz, 2005, Went, 2004,). If
the global governance system is seen as an engine of wealth generation based on one-
dimensional internationalisation, these remedies act as the necessary democratic and social
regulators, ensuring that global interaction proceeds on fair terms (Brock, 2013).