Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:04:35.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Autarky as a moral baseline

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Kristi A. Olson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stanford University, 616 Serra Street, Stanford, CA94305
*
*Current address: Department of Philosophy, Bowdoin College, 8400 College Station, Brunswick, ME04011-8484, USA. Email: kolson@bowdoin.edu

Abstract

In his account of fairness in international trade, Aaron James distinguishes autarkic gains from the gains of trade. Since the autarkic gains are external to the practice of trade, James's account allows each country to keep these gains. The gains of trade, in contrast, must be distributed equally. This distinction suffers from three problems. First, James's autarkic adjustment not only allows inequalities to persist, but exacerbates and creates new ones. Second, there is no non-morally arbitrary way to determine the autarkic gains. Finally, by favouring his account over more egalitarian options, James does not merely set autarkic gains aside as external to the practice of trade but rather implicitly endorses a moral entitlement to autarkic gains without argumentation.

Type
Author meets Critic
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

James, A. 2012. Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Mathias, and Wollner, G.. 2013. “Critical Notice of Aaron James, Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43: 382401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar