Repinted from Ethics & International Affairs 1 6 ,n o. 2.

© 2002 by Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs.

D E B AT E : G LOBAL POVERTY RELIEF

More Than Charity: Cosmopolitan
Alternatives to the “Singer Solution”
Andrew Kuper

THE POLITICS OF GLOBAL POVERTY

othing is more politically impor- for bodies like the United Nations, the United

N tant to think about, and act upon,

than global poverty relief. Numbers
can mask the human faces of poverty, but
States spends only .13 percent of its yearly
resources on assisting poor and marginalized
people in other countries. It is not alone.
they do bring out its scale: Today, any day, Almost every developed state lavishes over 99
30,000 children under the age of five will die percent of its resources (GNP) solely on “look-
from preventable illness and starvation. A ing out for its own.”2 Since this parochialism of
further 163 million children who will survive states is the dominant order of the day, we
this day are severely undernourished. Some should hardly be surprised that few inroads
1.2 billion people will try to subsist on less have been made into relieving global poverty.
than one dollar a day, while 2.4 billion will How can a better alternative world be
not have access to basic sanitation.1 achieved—politically, economically, militarily,
It’s reasonable to feel some despair. What socially? Some massive failures of development
can any one of us, the relatively rich, even strategies in recent decades offer hard lessons
begin to do to reduce this immense daily about our limited grip on these vexing ques-
misery? How much would we have to sacri- tions, and the difficulty of formulating feasible
fice? Since the costs to ourselves may be sig- answers. Because these questions are vast and
nificant, how much ought we to sacrifice? interlinked, and because the answers are mat-
And as the terminology of a richer “we” and ters of vision as well as prudence, the need for
poorer “they” hides vast differences within a systematic orientation of our practical think-
groups,it helps to ask the more concrete and ing and action has never been greater.
controlled question: Which of us must do This article evaluates one important
what for whom? attempt to provide such an orientation—
In practice, the traditional “statist” answer
to this last question has been brute and inade- 1
These figures are from the United Nations Human
quate: “The state must look after some basic Development Report 2001 (New York: Oxford Univer-
needs of its own citizens.” International insti- sity Press, 2001), pp. 9-13.
2
World Bank, World Development Indicator 2000,
tutions are highly visible these days, but that
table 6.8 (provides definitions and measures of the lim-
should not deceive us into thinking things ited extent of development assistance), available at
have changed all that much. Including support www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2000/pdfs/tab6_8.pdf.

D E B AT E 107
that of the moral philosopher most widely poor, hurting those whom cosmopolitans
known outside academia, Peter Singer. generally wish to help. I attempt to rescue
Singer’s commitment to social activism is cosmopolitanism as a plausible and practical
admirable and—rare amongst philoso- guide to social action by linking it to better
phers—he is a pleasure to read. But I argue forms of explanation and recommendation
that his overall approach to poverty relief— that are likely actually to help the poor.
he labels it “The Singer Solution to World Hume may have been right, on the whole,
Poverty”—is irremediably lacking as a theo- that “truth springs from argument among
retical orientation for action. I show how friends”;3 but, with so much at stake, I must
Singer’s approach neglects the ways in which rather try to rescue others from the charm-
the scale of societies and their complex ingly simple persuasions of my friend.
interdependence in today’s world signifi-
cantly reshape what is practically feasible
THE SINGER SOLUTION TO
and morally required of us. After criticizing
the “Singer solution,” I argue that a different WORLD POVERTY
theoretical orientation for development and
Singer is famous for his extremely demand-
politics is needed—a “political philosophy,”
ing view about what we, the relatively rich,
not a dangerously individualist “practical
oughtto do and sacrifice to help the poor. His
ethics.” I show that this theoretical orienta-
article “Famine, Affluence and Morality,”
tion enables us to identify a very different
written in 1972, stated this view with the help
range of actions and actors necessary to
of a resonant analogy: Singer asked readers to
reduce mass poverty.
imagine that, on the way to giving a lecture,
Both Singer’s approach and the alternative
he walks past a shallow pond, and witnesses a
approach that I develop here fall within a
child in danger of drowning.4 He can easily
school of moral thought that can be labeled
wade in and rescue the child, but he may dirty
“cosmopolitan.” Cosmopolitans broadly
or even ruin his clothes, and fail to make the
agree that the interests of all persons (Singer
lecture. Singer rightly points out that it would
would say animals) must count equally in
be morally monstrous to allow these minor
moral deliberation, and that geographical
considerations to count against taking action
location and citizenship make no intrinsic
to save the child’s life. Then he generalizes
difference to the rights and obligations of
from this ethical case to the situation of rela-
those individuals. In one sense, then, what
tively wealthy people,especially in developed
follows is a debate between friends. But in
countries, vis-à-vis people starving or dying
another sense, the divide is more serious:
of preventable diseases in developing coun-
Singer yokes cosmopolitanism (individual-
tries. We do nothing or almost nothing, while
centric morality as the basis of justice) to
thousands die. Yet it is seriously wrong to fail
individualist social explanation and moral
to give aid when the costs to oneselfare not of
directives. Both of the latter are implausible
routes to understanding the justice or injus-
tice of structures of governance and society, 3
Cited in Dennis Leyden, Thinking Critically in Eco-
and the ri gh tness or wrongness of the nomics,Web edition, at www.uncg.edu/eco/dpleyden/
ctworkbook/hbook_1discussions(2e).htm.
actions of individuals operating within those 4
Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence and Morality” (1972),
structures. Worse, both route s ,t a ken as bases reprinted in his Writings on an Ethical Life (New York:
for action, are likely to be perilous to the Ecco Press, 2000), pp. 105-17.

108 Andrew Kuper

“moral significance” or even of “comparable insists that “in important respects, the tie of
moral importance.” nationality is more like the tie of race than it
When we think about it, Singer points is like the tie of family or friend.”10 His rea-
out, very few things are as morally impor- soning, in short, is that “human life would
tant as saving life. On his account, this is not be as good” without intimate ties, and
demonstrated both by eliciting our intu- any attempt to eradicate them would require
itions (with thought experiments) and by abhorrent levels of coercion. Na ti onal or
utilitarian reasoning (moral action involves patriotic ties, on the other hand, neither are
minimizing suffering and maximizing well- necessary to the well-being of all of us nor
being). Either mode of reasoning makes are they intransigent. Thus these ties cannot
most of our material acquisitions (say, be justified from “an impartial perspective.”11
another jacket) and new experiences (say, Citizens and governments that accord prior-
enjoying an opera or a concert) seem like ity to compatriots, while people in foreign
luxuries of little or no moral significance. In lands are in far more urgent and desperate
a more recent article Singer concludes: “The need, are committing a sin that comes close
formula is simple: whatever money you’re to discriminating on the basis of race.
spending on luxuries,not necessities,should We now have before us Singer’s answer to
be given away.”5 Who should give how much our question, who must do what for whom?
exactly? The average American household Three main points about his argument are
should give away any annual income over vital:
$30,000.6 Singer acknowledges that wide- 1. It relies on (a) analogies between individual
spread and deep altruism from such rela- cases—actually, thought experiments—and
tively rich people is profoundly unlikely. But more complex real-world situations and/or
he still insists that “we should at least know (b) utilitarian positions about maximizing
that we are failing to live a morally decent happiness and minimizing pain. These analo-
life”—above all because this knowledge is gies and positions aim to reveal that there is no
likely to motivate us to donate more than we moral equivalence between our penchant for
luxuries and the survival needs of poor people.
do at present.7 Singer is even willing to be
sparing in his blame: given the present 2. It denies that (a) shared citizenship and (b)
“standard . . . of normal behavior” of Amer- distance per se make any difference to the
ican citizens, he “wouldn’t go out of [his] nature and extent of our obligations to help
way to chastise” those who donate only 10 others:“It makes no moral difference whether
percent of their income.8 the person I help is a neighbor’s child ten yards
So we know whoought to do what; but for
5
whom? Whom should the rich select as recip- Peter Singer, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”
(1999), reprinted in Writings on an Ethical Life,pp. 118-
ients of this (obligatory) charity? Only two 24, at p. 123.
considerations count for Singer: the relative 6
Ibid. The amount is in 1999 dollars.
7
extent of poor people’s need, and “the degree Ibid., p. 124.
8
Ibid., p. 122.
of certainty that . . . our assistance will get to 9
Peter Singer, “Outsiders: Our Obligations to Those
the right person, and will really help that per- Beyond Our Borders,” (forthcoming [author’s draft]),
son.”9 Singer is clearly a cosmopolitan, pp. 1-14, at p. 3.
10
emphatically rejecting shared membership Ibid., p. 7.
11
Ibid.;see also “The Good Life,” in How Are We to Live?
in a nation or a state as grounds for choosing (1993), reprinted in Writings on an Ethical Life,pp. 264-
to give to one person rather than another. He 72, at p. 267.

More Than Charity 109

 from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never tial forms of philosophical reasoning about
12
know, ten thousand miles away.” how we ought to act at a distance and over
3. It results in a simple measure of sacrifice and time. They are acontextual. I will mention
a definite injunction to act: Donate a large the kind of moral acontextualism that pre-
portion of your income—(a) at least 10 per- occupies Singer’s leading critics, but only as
cent, or (b) to really avoid wrongdoing, every a prelude to arguing that both Singer and his
cent not devoted to purchasing necessities. critics suffer from a more serious kind of
Singer even passes along the toll-free numbers political acontextualism.
of UNICEF (1-800-378-5437) and Oxfam (1- Singer’s critics also like using thought
800-793-2687) so that “you, too, have the experiments: What if, every day, as Singer
13
information you need to save a child’s life.” walks past the pond, fifty children were close
This is an emotive and appealing argu- to drowning? Every day, he takes his self-
ment. But if Singer’s exhortations make you imposed obl i ga ti on seriously, and spends
want to act immediately in the ways he rec- the day rescuing them, abandoning his lec-
ommends, you should notdo so. First, be wary, tures. Princeton gets wind of this and does
for he tells us something we so want to hear: not share his ethical orientation. Now, it is
that there is a simple way to appease our con- one thing to expect someone to save a
sciences, that there is a royal road to poverty drowning child and give up one lecture, but
relief. Sadly, as much as we wish it, this is not it is quite another—if there are tens or thou-
the case. By exploring a complex of mistakes sands drowning (or starving, or ill) every
in Singer’s arguments, and by elucidating day—to expect him to devote himself to
recent hard lessons from the theory and prac- being a lifeguard instead of a teacher. And
tice of development and politics, I now show since there is always so much misery and
that his approach is likely to seriously harm danger in the world, it seems that moral
the poor. We must be careful not to make our- people will have to give up almost any job
selves feel better in ways that damage the that doesn’t directly or maximally involve
capabilities and well-being of the vulnerable. saving lives. Yet there are many values other
I show that a very different kind of approach than survival: Can it really be morally
to relieving mass poverty is called for. It is required to give up vital sources of meaning
more analytically demanding (it resists any such as the work we do, the social commit-
comforting illusion of a royal road), but it ments we have, and the knowl ed ge and
would in fact help the poor. Although Singer excell en ces we pursue? Some of these life
rightly endorses a morality that shows global projects are so central to our existence that it
concern, and rightly criticizes the parochial- is a sheer “overload of obligation” to expect
ism of states,there are more coherent theoret- people to give them up. As Bernard Williams
ical foundations for the effective practice of famously argued, people should not be
cosmopolitan development. regarded as levers for utility or survival max-
imization:14 We ought also to care about
WHY CHARITY IS NEVER
12
ENOUGH Singer, “Outsiders,” p. 3.
13
Singer, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” p. 120.
14
Bernard Williams,“Persons, Character and Morality,”
Arguments from analogy may be rhetorical- in his Moral Luck (Cambridge: Cambridge University
ly effective, but do not stand up even as ini- Press, 1982), pp. 1-19.

110 Andrew Kuper

love, work, wisdom, a rt , truth, and much to contribute to political accountability and
more that is relevant to our dignity and sig- economic reforms. But here I find that
nificance as beings. In short, Singer South Africa is locked into a complex global
demands that we deal with poverty by economic and political order dominated by
impoverishing our human lives. strongly neoliberal presumptions. The
I don’t intend to discuss these kinds of problem is not simply that structural adjust-
criticism much further. It is quite evident ment and Mbeki may eradicate any positive
that we cannot achieve a plausible weighting effect of my donation (doing no good). The
of values if we use reasoning that removes problem is not even simply that—as in Zim-
from view, or underrepresents, all values babwe—I may increase the power and hold
other than survival. In his more recent writ- of a kleptocratic elite (doing harm). Rather,
ings—partly in light of this criticism— given the structure of the world as it is, the
Singer wisely tempers his claims. He allows most serious problem for Singer is that we
that we can justify spending more on our may do better for South Africans by buying
families and the necessities of their exis- furniture and clothes from ethical manufac-
tence; all he asks is that we g ive away every- turers and manufacturers in developing
thing beyond that, or donate at least 10 countries than by donation. Adequate
percent of our income. So all we have to do employment opportunities, for instance,are
is give up expensive shopping, eating, and the leading determinant of people’s ability
traveling. Is this too much to ask? to provide for themselves and their fami-
Unlike Singer and his panoply of lies.15 After all, more than 50 percent of the
Williams-type critics, I just don’t think this is world’s manufacturing jobs are now located
the central question. We need to see our way outside the OECD region—a twelvefold
through the debate between them, because it increase in four decades.16 As for tourism, a
is couched in terms of an unhelpful binary labor-intensive industry, it generated $476
opposition of “self-ish” against “self-less.” billion worldwide last year, but sub-Saharan
The whole debate is too narcissistic in its pre- Africa received only 2.5 percent of the total
occupation with conscience and sacrifice. As number of visitors.17 Think what a tremen-
a consequence, the recommendations from dous difference it might make to poor peo-
both sides are the opposite of helpful. ple in the region if that number could be
Let’s take as a pressing case the HIV/AIDS brought closer to 10 or 15 percent.
pandemic ravaging my own country of ori- These kinds of considerations should
gin, South Africa, and the desire to help pre- make us extremely wary of Singer’s perfunc-
vent ever-increasing infection. This example tory and categorical claims—that we should
is less artificial than those Singer favors. Does give up indulgences such as expensive
his conception of the nature and extent of
sacrifice make a difference or provide a plau- 15
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (New York:
sible route to alleviating this misery? Knopf, 1999), pp. 111-45 and 160-88; for case studies,see
Amartya Sen, Jean Drèze, and Athar Hussain, eds.,
I could take most of my money and give it
Hunger and Public Action (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
to an AIDS organization. But the effect of 1995).
16
my contribution would be dwarfed and per- John Keane, “Who’s in Charge Here? The Need for a
haps overridden by President Mbeki’s Rule of Law to Regulate the Emerging Global Civil Soci-
ety,” Times Literary Supplement,May 18, 2001.
bizarre and injudicious remarks that HIV 17
Audrey D’Angelo, “SA Loses Out While Global
does not cause AIDS. So perhaps then I want Tourism Expands,” The Saturday Star, May 26, 2001.

More Than Charity 111

clothes, restaurants, beach resorts, and more vulnerable in more ways to my action
house redecoration.18 Indeed, in the South and inaction,and to the interactions of mul-
African case, manufacturing exports, tourism, tiple other individuals and collectives. That
and other service industries are among the is, my impact at a distance brings more peo-
few successful mechanisms that have kept ple within the ambit of my moral concern—
people from falling further into grinding at the very least,by making me aware of their
poverty. If many citizens of developed coun- existence,their capacities,and their need. So
tries gave up their luxuries, three central scale changes whom I ought to priori ti ze
planks of the country’s development strate- when addressing mass poverty: not so much
gy would collapse. (For all that Mbeki is the poor rather than my family, as large
wrong to question the link between HIV and numbers of people enmeshed in social sys-
AIDS, he is not mistaken in pointing out tems rather than isolated individuals. We
that poverty renders people systematically cooperate and succeed (or fail) not merely
more vulnerable to most diseases.) Among through direct interaction but through
other disastrous consequences would be the social rules and institutions.Effective pover-
crippling of governmental and NGO ability ty relief will thus require above all extensive
to curb the rate of HIV/AIDS infection and cooperation with other agents—indeed, it
help those suffering from the disease. will require the creation or reform of agen-
So, when Singer says that luxuries are cies to reduce poverty. Thus we also need to
“unnecessary,” he is right that rich individu- reconsider how to alleviate the plight of the
als can sur vive without them, but wrong to needy, with a par ticular eye on who (which
think that poor people can—that is, that agencies) it is that can best help.
their well-being is independent of the mar- Here’s the rub: It is not enough to say that
ket in luxury goods. None of this means that all persons have equal moral claims on us;
industries and market practices cannot and we need to ask how best to organize our-
should not be constrained and reoriented so selves politically and economically to meet
that they are less rapacious and much more those claims. Which combinations of rules
socially beneficial.On the contrary, it tells us and institutions of governance are most
that this kind of constraint and reorienta- effective? What roles ought we to play as
tion is a priority. But, to bring positive individuals in respect of the primary agents
change abo ut , we have to consider more of aid and justice? Analogies to ethical deci-
carefully the direct and indirect, cumulative sions by an individual in a hermetically
and complex effects of multiple human sealed case actually obscure all these prob-
interactions. lems and questions. For while it is true that
This real case, then, reveals that we need we often act as individuals, the causal rele-
to adopt a very different way of thinking. vance or impa ct of our actions depends on
Where we do not share our everyday lives the positions we occupy within complex
with people, we interact with them through social systems.
a complex and diff erentiated web of politi- Philosophers may want me to put the
cal and economic relations. This has great point a little more technically: Singer con-
relevance to the plausibility of Singer’s argu- flates issues of practical reason—our obliga-
ment. Distance matters because scale tions to the vulnerable—with issues of
matters—in several ways. The scale of con-
temporary societies makes more people 18
Singer,“The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” p. 123.

112 Andrew Kuper

judgment—the obligations of the relatively POLITICAL JUDGMENT
rich to the poor in the particular case of the IN CONTEXT
world in which we live. If we are to make
judgments of how to act in this world, we Lest I seem to sound like a neoliberal apolo-
should not confuse abstract with practical gist, or a defeatist, it is helpful to see how
requirements. From the fact that we have an much more informative is the theoretical ori-
abstract obligation of aid or charity, it does entation of Karl Marx. Marx understood that
not follow that we are practically obliged to the first step in approaching political struggle
donate to the poor. How we address poverty and producing change is a structural analysis
is a matter of judgment: understanding the of the dynamic causes of impoverishment
relevant features of a social system or situa- and immiseration. A theory that does not
tion; considering which principles are rele- include a contextual and institutional analy-
vant, whether they present competing sis (in the broadest sense) is condemned to
demands in practice, and how other agents recommending brief symptomatic relief, or
are likely to act; and finally, adjudicating on even damaging and counterproductive
a contextual course of action. Nothing in the action. This is not a peculiarly Marxist point,
principle of aid or charity determines that and one does not have to sympathize with
the right action in any or all contexts is Marxists to think that telling the bourgeoisie
donation. All-too-quick recommendations to be more charitable as individual actors is
are not just a leap from principle to action, unlikely to produce deep changes.
they are symptomatic of an implicitly apo- There is, ironically, a quasi-Calvinist
litical outlook that does not take the real strand to the individualist approach to
demands of contextual judgment seriously. development: an insistence that one can
Singer might say that analogies are merely never do enough, never be as moral as one
designed to show that we do have an exten- ought to be; and an emphasis on individual
sive obligation of charity. But this is no conscience rather than effective collective
answer. His analogies and other arguments moral norms and political institutions. Yet
abstract from the causal dynamics of poverty the well-documented failure of relief efforts
and opportunity, and from the mediated and in recent decades is a powerful indicator that
indirect nature of social relations at a global a structure-sensitive approach to develop-
scale. This leads to a serious underestimation ment is indispensable to any wise, humane
of the complexities of the remedies and the program or philosophy of right action. Con-
diversity of roles available to us. Indeed, it sider, most starkly, the perpetuation and
leads to a failure to see that, in making judg- intensification of the Rwandan conflict and
ments about poverty relief, knowledge of the human misery aggravated by aid agen-
institutions and awareness of roles must cies that sustained refugee camps. In spite of
frame thinking about individuals. Even the camps becoming bases for militiamen
aggressively laissez-faire capitalists maintain and incubators for cholera, the prospect of
that their actions are best for the poor. That international NGO aid encouraged people
is, what is at stake most of the time is not how not to return to their homes even when it
much we should sacrifice, but whether and was safer to do so, thus intensifying and pro-
which uses of resources and what kinds of longing the conflict. Consider also the “food
agencies make a positive difference, and how. relief ” of the 1970s that so damaged the sit-

More Than Charity 113

uation of developing world farmers and even more. This is a direct result of our inter-
their dependents. It is hardly an unfamiliar est in sustainability: the primary agents of
thought that things can always get worse: justice and aid must, especially in the long
consider Shakespeare’s King Lear on the run, possess the ultimate power to act as
Heath, or Titus Andronicus. Development such, and it must be possible to hold them
experts will be highly aware of countless properly accountable for those actions.
recent examples that we can only wish were I am not proposing conservatism,inertia,
fictional. or any other individual abroga ti on of
Marx understood all too well the possibil- responsibility. What I am suggesting is that
ity of this kind of inversion of the invisible if Singer, the reader, and I are concerned to
hand: the well-intentioned agent focusing do something to assist the most marginal-
on his or her lone action may well do more ized and desperate in our world, we must
harm than good. In retrospect, Singer would not rest content with a purportedly “practi-
acknowledge that his 1972 claim that “expert cal ethics” that is misleading and potentially
observers and supervisors . . . can direct our dangerous because of its methodological
aid to a refugee in Bengal as we could get it individualism and limited scope—temporal
to someone in our own block”19 is grievous- and spatial. The last thing we can afford to
ly optimistic. Yet Singer remains fond of say- be is ahistorical, acontextual, and noninsti-
ing, in one way or another, “We must do tutional in our approach to global poverty
something.” Given the complex interde- relief. We need a political philosophy.
pendence and economic and political per-
versities that characterize our shared world,
W H AT CAN POLITICAL
the injunction “first do no harm” deserves at
least equal consideration. Or, since we may P H I LOSOPHY CONTRIBUTE?
sometimes have to do some harm to do sig-
There are three broad components neces-
nificant good—courses of action are rarely
sary for such a political philosophy: a politi-
cost-free—perhaps the most relevant
cal economy that charts the causal dynamics
injunction of all is “proceed carefully.”
of the global economy and indicates the
Of course, well-intentioned institutional
extent to which these could be controlled;21
reform can also do horrible things; more-
a theory of justice that supplies a metric for
over, donations can be used to reform the
evaluating goals and derives a set of princi-
existing institutional order. But there is an
ples with which to approach the problems of
important asymmetry here. International
development; and a political sociology that
and other NGOs can never be the primary
encompasses and distinguishes the respec-
agents of justice and aid over the long run.20
tive roles of individuals and various institu-
I shall merely list some of the major reasons:
tions in advancing these moral ends. In
their funding is too capricious;their position
considering South African realities and
is too dependent on the will or whim of oth-
ers (often rulers) whose interests necessarily
diverge from those of NGOs; NGOs are far 19
Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” p. 108.
20
from democratically elected or accountable; Onora O’Neill, “Agents of Justice,” Metaphilosophy 32
and they cannot produce large-scale growth (January 2001), pp. 180-95.
21
John Dunn has repeatedly stressed the centrality o f
and redistribution. We need NGOs, but we these questions to political und erstanding. See his The
need good government and better markets Cunning of Unreason(London: HarperCollins, 2000).

114 Andrew Kuper

Marxist thought, I have said something In one respect, Singer and I are entirely in
about the first;I now examine dimensions of agreement: by placing states (along with the
the remaining two by contrasting John ethnic and religious groups they contain) at
Rawls’s approach to global justice with that the center of his ideals of justification and
of Singer. justice, Rawls erroneously prioritizes group
Rawls’s groundbreaking A Theory of Jus- identities and national citizenship over indi-
tice (1971) begins with the recognition that vidual moral claims. 26 Rawls also fails to
society is a scheme of cooperation for mutu- take account of the extent to which people’s
al advantage. The primary determinant of life chances within a state, and the political
how well each of us fares is a set of basic cultures of that state, are affected by struc-
social institutions and laws that embody cer- tures and events beyond its borders and con-
tain principles of justice. In The Law of Peo- trol.27 But Singer is asserting more than this.
ples (1999) Rawls extends this idea to He thinks that it is unhelpful and irrespon-
international society.22 He asks, in short, sible, while thousands are dying and institu-
what basic laws and institutions form fair tions are slow to reform, to focus on an ideal
bases for cooperation between “peoples”— theory of justice—a compelling conception
or what I have elsewhere called “thin of the basic institutions of a just society. This
states.”23 Each of these thin states is a nation- fierce accusation is surely mistaken. As I now
al political structure, one that is nonaggres- want to show, ideal theory serves as a valu-
sive toward others and takes members’ able orienteering mechanism for action right
interests into account—at least as members now. As such, along with a focus broadly on
of ethnic, religious,and other groups. Rawls political cultu re , it better serves the poor
then develops a conception of justice appro- than does the “Singer solution.”
priate to an ideal Society of Peoples or “thin An ideal conception of justice is very far
state system.” When it comes to distributive from the atrociously nonideal conditions in
issues related to poverty relief, Rawls argues developing countries; but, for judging
that decent and liberal peoples do have an potential courses of action such a metric and
obligation to assist burdened societies (that set of principles is indispensable, for se ven
is, developing countries unable to maintain reasons.
well - ordered regi m e s ) . Nevert h el e s s , a s 1. By having the appropriate ideal ends in view,
Singer points out, Rawls emphasizes that “a we can distinguish courses of action and insti-
change of culture”—by which Rawls means tutional change that get us closer to or farther
the political system as well as ethos24—is from these aims; we are not condemned to a
most crucial to en su ring that the lives of
individuals within such societies go better. 22
John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge: Harvard
Singer is deeply critical of this approach. University Press, 1999).
23
He writes that Rawls’s “emphasis on the Andrew Kuper,“Rawlsian Global Justice: Beyond The
Law of Peoples to a Cosmopolitan Law of Persons,”
need for a change of culture leaves
Political Theory28 (October 2000), pp. 640-74.
untouched the plight of individuals who are 24
Rawls, The Law of Peoples,pp. 57-85.
25
dying of starvation, malnutrition, or easily Singer, “Outsiders,” p. 12 (italics in original).
26
preventable diseases right now, in countries Kuper, “Global Justice,” pp. 645-53.
27
See some of the excellent essays by Thomas Pogge
that presently lack the capacity to provide collected in World Poverty and Human Rights (Cam-
for the needs of all their citizens.”25 bridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 2002).

More Than Charity 115

 reactive development strategy. And where we individual and collective predicaments and
are forced by adverse conditions to make diffi- opportunities? The “we” that Singer addresses
cult or tragic choices, we will not unwittingly are single and fairly undifferentiated wealthy
make suboptimal compromises.28 individuals. The “we” that Rawls addresses are
all individuals understood as organized into
2. By focusing on the social system, and on the
cooperative groups and societies. This is the
ways in which others are vulnerable to us,we take
beginning of a proper political sociology—
account of the context and consequences of indi-
even if it needs to be adjusted and d eveloped
vidual agency. Actors who consider their loca-
further and is on the whole far less developed
tion and capacities relative to other role-players
than that of Marx and Lenin.
are more effective in coordinating collective
action, and better at channeling their individual Things do not all go Rawls’s way. His soci-
efforts to produce cumulative benefits.29 ology, for instance, is unjustifiably organicist
and statist. He chooses to recognize the wrong
3. A structure-sensitive focus leads us to
collectives—ethnic, religious, and national
emphasize actions’ indirect and long-term
consequences for a social system’s capacities to
groups—as the authoritative sources of value
provide for the needy. This emphasis is the and valuation.33 Those who think that the
cornerstone of sustainable developm en t state, let alone the nation, is a guarantor of
rather than ad hoc interventions. order and rights would do well to recognize
that, from the time that a state system was
4. We will not uncritically support simple
effectively inaugurated in the Treaty of West-
equality, since we can recognize that some
phalia of 1648, 150 million people have been
inequalities can be justified—on the g rounds
that they improve the lot of the most needy or
of all of us.30(Some attention to incentives, for 28
Kuper, “Global Justice,” pp. 658-67.
29
example, is surely realistic.) Singer, on the For an empirical study of this kind of informed effi-
other hand, has no criteria for distinguishing cacy, from the perspective of the media as agents, see
Andrew Kuper and Jocelyn Kuper, “Serving a New
fair from unfair asymmetric distributions.
Democracy: Must the Media ‘Speak Softly’?” Interna-
5. A systemic account constantly directs our tional Journal of Public Opinion Research13, no. 4 (2001),
pp. 355-76.
attention to the need for an explanatory and 30
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
predictive political economy, one that sets real- versity Press, 1972), pp. 60-108 and 258-84.
istic limits to our ideal theories. This makes for 31
My thanks to Sanjay Reddy for insisting on this point.
32
relevant and realistic, not naïve,idealism. O’Neill, “Agents of Justice.” O’Neill has long argued,
eloquently and p ersuasively, that we need to know the
6. A more complex causal story also reminds corresponding and specific agent of obligation if we are
us to avoid a Singerian tendency to treat active to have a clear conception of the content of rights and
individuals in developing countries almost the plausibility of claiming them.
33
Many of the problems of our world are problems not
wholly as recipients or moral patients. 31 Poor simply of distribution among states but of a state-cen-
people are neither powerless nor ignorant in tric system. A nesting of political structures that
respect of important problems and opportu- attempts to concentrate power around unitary, territo-
nities for action; they need to be addressed as rially differentiated loci of control is inescapably prone
agents, capable of independent action as well to conflict and misallocation. Such a system not only
divorces the location of issues from the loc a ti on of
as cooperative endeavor. capability to resolve issues, but also encourages a ction
to amplify a friend-foe dichotomy in politics.On these
7. It becomes possible to identify the primary
topics, see Kuper, “Global Ju s ti ce ,” and David Held,
agents of justice and aid.32 We ask, Which per- Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt,and Jonathan Per-
sons and institutions are capable of, and bear raton, eds., Global Transformations: Politics, Economics
definite responsibility for, dealing with which and Culture (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 1999).

116 Andrew Kuper

killed by their own governments. Marxists can have made four powerful and relevant
hardly feel comfortably superior either, given points. 36 First, he accepts that not much
some famously misguided notions about the weight should be placed on arguments from
privileged agent of political struggle, the pro- analogy, but maintains that these are useful
letariat (or its vanguard). Further, Marx did devices for eliciting people’s intuitions and
not accept that piecemeal institutional focusing their thinking. Second, he is clear
reforms could make a lasting difference to the that,in considering how to act under condi-
lives of the poor. In his view, reforms serve as tions of complex interdependence, what is
ultimately insignificant attempts by the ruling right for each individual to do “will depend
class to stave off revolution. Thus Marx lacked on the story you believe,” on which political-
a differentiated account of the many possible economic explanations and predictions you
agents of justice. None of these many mistakes accept. Third,there is a very low probability
should lead us to deny the centrality of socio- of bringing about structural change, where-
logical insight.34 On the contrary, it should as there is a high probability of doing direct
encourage us to carefully and critically identi- good through well-targeted donation.
fy complexes of agencies that do and might Fourth, he argues that there is no trade-off
operate successfully in the face of global trans- between private giving and governments’
formations. taking responsibility: if citizens give more,
Of course, an important thinker cannot be then governments will too, because govern-
blamed for all that he or she has not done. ments tend to value what their citizens
What we may legitimately demand,however,is value; further, even if there is a trade-off,
that he or she attempts to recognize and spec- more good will be done by individual giving
ify the limits of his or her own account. When than harm done by the reduction in govern-
a philosopher is as public and exhortatory as ment aid; and, finally, the argument “gov-
Singer, this kind of circumspection is a press- ernments bear primary responsibility” is
ing requirement, lest his philosophy be taken generally an excuse for not giving.
as an unmediated basis for (possibly disas- I will consider these responses in turn.
trous) action. Note that it is not a good reply to Singer’s analogies do focus the mind, but
say that the economy will continue regardless they focus it on only one thing, or the wrong
of my or Singer’s individual action: Singer thing. As a result, they are likely to mislead
intends that his philosophy be a basis for ethi- in at least equal measure,and their use is jus-
cal and political movements (for example,ani- tified if and only if there is a responsible fill-
mal rights) that do change the way a large
number of people live, produce, and consume. 34
See the discussion of this point in Quentin Skinner,
As Singer once wrote:“I think that if you try to Partha Dasgupta, Raymond Geuss, Andrew Kuper,
cover up the cracks in the ethic, you’re likely to Melissa Lane, Peter Laslett,and Onora O’Neill,“Politi-
cal Philosophy: The View from Cambridge,” The Jour-
get a major crash in the long run.”35 nal of Political Philosophy 10, no. 1, Tenth Anniversary
Issue (2002), pp. 1-19.
35
Singer, “What’s Wrong with Killing?”from “Practical
NO ROYAL ROAD TO Ethics” (1993), reprinted in Writings on an Ethical Life,
POVERTY RELIEF pp. 125-45, at p. 125.
36
Singer, “Famine, Affluence,and Morality,” pp. 114-16;
“Outsiders,” pp. 3, 5-10; “The Singer Solution to World
What might Singer reply along these several Poverty,” pp. 122-24; and Practical Ethics (Cambridge:
dimensions? In various places, he seems to Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 218-63.

More Than Charity 117

ing out and adjustment of the analysis and abandon and which are necessary and the
injunctions that seem to flow from such most beneficial to global development and
one-dimensional examples. “It will depend poverty relief. We have seen that the brute
on the story you believe” does not meet everything-in-excess-of-$30,000 donation
these criteria. On this ultrawide specifica- rule should not apply.
tion, one seems compelled to acknowledge Finally, let’s address Singer’s remaining
that the sincere extreme neoliberal agent is point that governments’ policies mirror the
deeply moral in his or her character and private policies of their citizens. Well,some-
conduct, since he or she believes that con- times they do, but sometimes they are in
spicuous consumption and massive differ- direct contrast. In the United States,after all,
entials in income are the most effective ways the absence of taxation and state interven-
to alleviate the plight of the poor. Singer’s tion to assist the needy at home is constant-
metric for improvement—without a related ly justified on the basis that voluntary
set of political principles—leaves us with donation and other forms of charity are
few grounds on which to dispute this nar- preferable. We need to know from Singer
row neoliberal interpretation. This presents which courses of action, if widely adopted,
us with a further large problem: an agent will provoke which kinds of response from
with this view is by no means unusual; in which agents.Should we become activists or
fact, given the dominance of Chicago-style active import consumers or both? Which
economics and neoliberal business atti- campaigns for increased private aid will
tudes, that agent is probably the norm. encourage more governmental foreign aid,
Marxist and Rawlsian theories locate agents’ and which will provoke a reactive decline?
outlooks against a background system of Should we lobby governments to place
justice or injustice, and so contain the democratizing conditions on loans, or will
resources to make a critical judgment of this that express and entrench existing power
pervasive kind of case (Ma rx ’s theory of structures? These questions must be asked
“false consciousness” and ideology is as rel- and answered responsibly. There is a great
evant and disputable as ever). Singer’s argu- difference between making relatively
ments—whether analogical, utilitarian, or wealthy people conscious of widespread suf-
vaguely intentionalist—are bereft of the fering, on the one hand, and helping indi-
necessary critical purchase. viduals and manifold massive institutions to
As for Singer’s remaining points, it may be become effective agents of justice and aid on
true that well-targeted donations do signifi- the other.
cant good and do not reduce the amount of Multiple questions do not constitute
governmental aid or the extent to which gov- excuses for failing to make the world a bet-
ernments and individuals take responsibility ter place. Rather, they are an acknowledg-
for development. Moreover, making people ment that “moral experts”—to adopt a term
“aware of the shameful record of the U.S.” is from one of Singer’s first articles—con-
certainly worthwhile.37 But an articulated cerned with effective praxis have an obliga-
philosophy is not going to recommend sub- tion to provide a tougher, more nuanced
optimal (if not counterproductive) courses of and accurate picture of the temporal, spa-
action, and so we need to know from Singer tial, and causal considerations that operate
which kinds of production and consump-
37
tion, investment and savings, we should Singer, “Outsiders,” p. 14.

118 Andrew Kuper

at great scale. Singer himself once wrote: Aid. One of the paradigmatic instances of
“Caring about doing what is right is, of effective interven ti on is the provision of
course,essential, but it is not enough, as the microcredit and technology that enable
numerous historical examples of well- access to wider opportunities for work,
meaning but misguided men indicate.”38 exchange, collective action, and the acquisi-
tion of skills. Some International Labour
Organization and Grameen Bank projects
CONCLUSION: COSMOPOLITAN
are successful examples of this approach.
PATHS TO POVERTY RELIEF Success in each case has been heavily
dependent on systematic analyses as to the
If my arguments are correct, the amount of
effects of incentives and of local norms and
donating and the extent of sacrifice are not
institutions, and on government help too.
the central issue;the real set of issues is how
Sensitive support of this kind can enable
to redeploy resources and energy to roles
the poor to help themselves, and to engage
and institutions within an extremely com-
in markets in ways that can also benefit
plex division of labor. Here are three limited
themselves and others—including at times
suggestions:
the relatively well-off. Yet innova ti on and
Consumption. Instead of giving up quali-
transfer of such cost-lowering technology,
ty clothes and holidays, we may find our-
for instance, require a social system that
selves buying clothes from ethical
encourages some people to be entrepreneurs
manufacturers and taking holidays in places
and engineers rather than lifeguards and
that badly need the tourist dollar. The South
development workers. Unfortunately, I
African government’s new “Brand SA” ini-
doubt whether such entrepreneurs and
tiative makes exactly this kind of argument
engineers would play their roles ifthere were
to elicit trade and tourism.
no selfish rewards (again, incentives can’t
Production. The granting of mining and
responsibly be ignored).39 But I am less
drilling concessions to corporations could be
skeptical of the possibility that they might
tied to obligations to manage medical and
become ethical consumers and investors, or
social needs arising out of HIV/AIDS in the
be prepared to accept “social clauses” to
regions in which companies wish to operate.
profitable contracts.
This would be akin to extending the well-
Advocating a donation to Oxfam might
established principles of ecotourism to the
conceivably in some contexts be the best
heart of the big business of resource extrac-
means to noble ends, but this is by no means
tion. The urban section of the World Bank
a foregone conclusion and universal remedy.
has begun to take this kind of approach.
Often, instead of telling individuals to dis-
Activism. Instead on relying solely on
pense piecemeal charity—generally in the
states to fund international organisations,or
face of some new disequilibrium in the
solely on individuals to fund NGOs, people
social system—we contribute better by cre-
can lobby for taxes on capital flows that give
the UN and similar bodies a minimal ind e-
38
pendent revenue base. And they can take to Peter Singer, “Moral Experts” (1972), reprinted in
Writings on an Ethical Life,pp. 3-6, at p. 4.
the streets when a large corporation turns 39
The need to take incentives seriously was one reason
out to be violating labor standards or rights Rawls settled on “maximin” rather than “maximize” as
anywhere in the world. a distributive principle.

More Than Charity 119

ating, reforming, or participating in support or ga n i z a ti ons that produce sus-
lifestyles and institutions that tend to gener- tainable changes in the background frame-
ate resilient and ongoing inclusion in the work of social institutions. But a systemic
benefits of cooperation. and long-term approach involves far more
The suggestions above derive from a cos- than targeting donations better. It requires
mopolitan morality, insofar as our concern a nu a n ced aw a reness that po l i tics is
is with the capabilities, rights, and obliga- ineradicably about scale and connected-
tions of all individuals,not first with citizens ness, and thus the coordinated action of
of our own states while the distant poor mu l tiple interdepen dent ro l e s . We mu s t
come a distant second. But these suggestions play those roles not with an eye to making
are also political, in the good sense, taking u s , the rel a tively we a l t hy or devel oped
account of the scale of s oc i eties and the co u n try citi zen s , feel bet ter, but with a
complex interdependence of our shared view to which complexes of agencies and
world. Of course, none of these suggestions actions will generate the most sustainable
should lead us to rush headlong into positive momentum. This means that the
action—microcredit, for instance, only language of s ac ri f i ce must generally give
works and is only appropriate in some situ- way to a deeper and better language: the
ations.40 We need to subject cosmopolitan language of social and economic coopera-
proposals to detailed scrutiny, because the ti on con d i ti on ed by the interests of t h e
details of context and consequences matter globally disadvantaged.
for the poor. For all their deficiencies, both Rawls and
I have repeatedly asked what difference Marx have in place large parts of a political
philosophical theories make to the project of philosophy. Singer does not. It is badly
global poverty relief. It should by now be needed if he wishes to provide guidance for
clear that an analysis from the broader per- engendering lasting improvements to the
spective of political philosophy—as opposed lives of the needy. Singer and political phi-
to the simple individualist lens of a purport- losophy might benefit significantly from
edly “practical ethics”—enables us to begin his turning his mind and formidable pen
to distinguish peremptory directives from to this ra n ge of difficult qu e s ti on s . As
considered, politically aware, and sustain- Wittgenstein put it, with characteristically
able strategies. But there remains the deep wry acuity: “If s om eone tells me he has
disjunct between the perspective of a system bought the outfit of a tightrope walker I am
of global justice and the sedimented power not impressed until I see what he has done
structures of the current global order. Part with it.”41
of what a clearly articulated theory reveals is
that some individuals’ giving away income
may do little to remedy this schism. While
40
charity may produce improvements, it may The ILO Social Finance Unit itself insists on this
at worst cause harm, or at least the relevant point; see www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/
finance.
resources might be better used in another 41
Cited in Ray Monk, Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of
way. No doubt there are good reasons to Genius (London: Vintage, 1991), p. 464.

120 Andrew Kuper