Mathias Risse

What Do We Know about What Makes Societies Rich or Poor, and Does it Matter for Global Justice?

For years, development economists have been debating the question of what makes countries rich or poor. Three theories have emerged: (a) it's largely geographical factors; (b) it's largely the quality of institutions; (c) it's largely the extent to which their economics are integrated into global markets. Econometric analysis has recently thrown a lot of light on these theories. The question now is: do political philosophers have anything to learn from development economists? I think the answer is 'yes.' The reason why empirical matters are central in particular for assessing what the global poor are owed is this: many agree that there is a duty to support the global poor, with disagreement remaining about the nature of this duty (normative question). Once such a duty is in place, we must ask more precisely about its content, which draws on the question of what makes countries wealthy (empirical). What it makes sense to impose as a duty must be influenced by what makes countries do well. The content of the duty, in turn, affects its scope and limits (normative). The purpose of this paper is to explore what philosophers can learn from development economists, and to suggest that the results of this inquiry support some claims of Rawls's in his Law of Peoples.