Risk, responsibility, and choice : why should some choices justify disadvantage while others don't?

Choice-based conceptions of substantive responsibility face a number of powerful counterexamples. In order to avoid some of these counterexamples, it is widely claimed that agents are substantively responsible for disadvantage arising from their choices only when the option set from which they chose satisfied a reasonability criterion. I examine three possible justifications for a reasonability criterion: an agent-responsibility-based motivation, a voluntariness-based motivation, and what I call a ‘denied-claim’-based motivation. In each case, I argue that the putative motivation cannot in fact justify a reasonability condition. I end with some comments on what this result means for choice-based conceptions of substantive responsibility

Hypothetical choice, egalitarianism and the separateness of persons

Luck egalitarians claim that disadvantage is worse when it emerges from an unchosen risk than when it emerges from a chosen risk. I argue that disadvantage is also worse when it emerges from an unchosen risk that the disadvantaged agent would have declined to take, had he or she been able to do so, than when it emerges from an unchosen risk that the disadvantaged agent would not have declined to take. Such a view is significant because it allows both luck egalitarians and prioritarians to respond to Voorhoeve and Fleurbaey's charge that they fail to accommodate intuitions about the moral relevance of interpersonal boundaries – the so-called separateness of persons objection. I argue that the view is plausible independently of its ability to answer the separateness of persons objection, and is a natural extension of the luck egalitarian concern with the impact of unchosen circumstance

Climate justice and energy : applying international principles to UK residential energy policy

There are ethical, legal and strategic/pragmatic reasons why it is important to ensure a just approach to climate change mitigation, both internationally and within nations. Ethically, low income countries or groups can be considered to suffer an injustice if they contribute least to climate change while still suffering from its effects, and yet also have little influence in international decision making around mitigation and adaptation responses (Preston et al, 2014). Legally, equity is embedded in the ‘common and differentiated responsibility’ principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and in the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (e.g. see Soltau, 2008). In the European context, the Aarhus Convention lays out rights to access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.2 Pragmatically, people are more likely to accept climate change mitigation and adaptation policies if they reflect a fair balance of responsibility, capability, and need (Gross, 2007; Aylett, 2010), and wider participation and fair process can help with management of conflict and help to build consensus (Aylett 2010). Buell and Mayne (2011) also argue that just approaches to climate change actions have strategic and practical advantages because they can help ensure political support, mobilising hidden assets and generating wider socio-economic benefits than approaches based solely on narrow economic or financial criteria at lower financial cost. As recent public debate over fuel bills in the UK shows, there are strong public concerns about the fairness of energy policy, particularly where it affects energy prices, which in turn influence policy desig

Can empathy provide a route to democratic inclusivity?

How can democracies promote full consideration of all relevant interests in political decision-making? Is there a role for empathy, especially where there are obstacles to direct inclusion of relevant groups, as for example in the case of future generations and citizens of other countries? Critics of existing uses of empathy in political theory press that limits to our capacity to empathise can lead to bias and partiality. I argue instead for a more nuanced ‘holistic’ approach to the use of empathy into democratic design. The approach recommends, first, that we be sensitive to the potential consequences of catalysing empathy in specific decision-making contexts, rather than making general prescriptions. Second, it asks us to consider how different methods of empathic induction generate insight and motivation of different strength and degrees of generality. Third, the approach proposes not only that empathy be introduced into existing institutions and designs, but that we aim through democratic design to bring patterns of power into closer alignment with naturally occurring patterns of empathy. Fourth, the approach recommends taking a pragmatic view of which interventions might be most useful in any particular institutional context

Global policymakers and catastrophic risk

There is a rapidly developing literature on risks that threaten the whole of humanity, or a large part of it. Discussion is increasingly turning to how such risks can be governed. This paper arises from a study of those involved the governance of risks from emerging technologies, examining the perceptions of global catastrophic risk within the relevant global policymaking community. Those who took part were either civil servants working for the UK government, U.S. Congress, the United Nations, and the European Commission, or cognate members of civil society groups and the private sector. Analysis of interviews identified four major themes: Scepticism; Realism; Influence; and Governance outside of Government. These themes provide evidence for the value of conceptualising the governance of global catastrophic risk as a unified challenge. Furthermore, they highlight the range of agents involved in governance of emerging technology and give reason to value reforms carried out sub-nationally

Who should represent future generations in climate planning?

Extreme impacts from climate change are already being felt around the world. The policy choices that we make now affect not only how high global temperatures will rise, but also how well-equipped future economies and infrastructures will be to cope with these changes. The interests of future generations must therefore be central to climate policy and planning. This raises the questions: who should should represent future generations and according to which criteria should we judge whether a particular candidate would make an appropriate representative for future generations? In this essay, we argue that potential representatives of future generations should satisfy what we call a “hypothetical acceptance criterion,” which requires that the representative could reasonably be expected to achieve the acceptance of future generations. This overarching criterion in turn gives rise to two derivative criteria. These are, first, “epistemic and experiential similarity to future generations” and, second, “motivation to act on behalf of future generations.” We conclude that communities already adversely affected by climate change best satisfy these criteria and are therefore able to command the hypothetical acceptance of future generations

Addressing multi-dimensional injustice in indigenous adaptation : the case of Uganda's Batwa community

Indigenous peoples, who depend on their environment for livelihoods and are often subject to poverty and socio-economic marginalization, are some of the most vulnerable to climate change. While the rights of Indigenous peoples are recognized internationally, these are not translated into adaptation responses. Using insights from theories of environmental justice in the case of Uganda’s Batwa community, we assess how justice-related factors impact their adaptive capacities and whether these are incorporated in the design and implementation of adaptation responses. Our findings reveal a multi-dimensional range of systemic injustices experienced by Batwa, resulting from their continued social-economic, cultural and political marginalization. Additionally, a variety of projects are happening locally in relation to ‘adaptation’ but not labelled as such, suggesting how Batwa's vulnerability is rooted in wider aspects of livelihoods and development. Most projects tend to focus on distribution of material benefits, while less attention is paid to the more intricate issues of compensation, political discrimination and uneven participation. This depoliticized and compartmentalized approach suggests a slow and incomplete way of operationalizing justice. Hence, we call for sincere efforts to address recognition, rights, and disproportionate levels of disadvantage for Indigenous communities, including their constitutional recognition, financial redress and participation in decision-making

Introducing the multi-dimensional injustice framework : a case study in climate-related health risks

Recent years have seen a shift in focus from research that asks how adaptation to climate change can be achieved, to research that asks how fair and equitable adaptation to climate change can be achieved, reflecting a broader turn in the climate literature towards pathways for just transitions in the face of the climate crisis. This paper introduces the Multi-Dimensional Injustice Framework (MDIF) as a normative framework for understanding, articulating, and tackling issues of justice and fairness in complex development challenges such as climate adaptation. The MDIF provides a set of indicators to identify distributive and procedural injustices that can be utilised within development and adaptation policy and planning. The paper further demonstrates how the MDIF can be applied in practice using a case study of climate-related health risks in the informal settlements of Lusaka, Zambia

Influence of COVID-19 Pandemic on food market prices and food supply in urban markets in Nairobi, Kenya

The COVID-19 pandemic caused an unprecedented disruption of food systems worldwide, with most governments taking severe containment measures to curb the spread. This resulted in unpredicted negative impacts of the agri-food supply chains coupled with food price inflations. Ultimately, this affected the food security and urban livelihoods for most households, who are dependent on urban markets for food supply. This study examined the implications of the pandemic on food prices and commodities supplies to urban markets conducted through structured interviews. A review of the secondary data was also conducted to show the trends of commodity prices over the last 5 years. The high inflation of commodity prices with a decline in sales volumes was reported by most traders (97%) with decreases in supply quantities. Changes in the consumption behaviour in households was reported by consumers (75%), with 65% experiencing reduced food diversity at home. Households adopted varied coping mechanisms, including reduced food portions (52%), reduced food varieties (44%) and skipping meals (32%). Market prices increased by an average margin of 13.8% for grains and pulses with price decline observed for cabbages (−30.8%) and Irish potatoes (−19.4%). The findings may inform policymakers of additional future shock and pandemic control protocols, whose actions would assure food protection of urban livelihoods

Perceptions of the governance of the technological risks of food innovations for addressing food security

Food and nutrition insecurity continue to risk the lives and wellbeing of millions of people throughout the world today. Further, food and nutrition insecurity are still major challenges in Kenya and have triggered the adoption of a number of modern biotechnologies for agricultural transformation. Consequently, many food technologies have been approved to secure sustainable access to food for millions of people. This study investigated the perceptions and implementation of two technologies for addressing food insecurity in Kenya, namely, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the use of antibiotics in livestock production. In particular, the study explored how their implementation can be governed responsibly through approved legislation. Therefore, the knowledge, attitudes and practices, as well as the governance, of GMO technology and antibiotic resistance risks were assessed. In-depth key interviews were conducted for a qualitative survey with triangulation using quantitative data sources. The findings showed that 46% of the population have limited knowledge about GMO technology, with about 79% indicating that foods with GM ingredients were already being consumed in the country despite the government ban. The majority of respondents agree that GMOs can contribute to an increase in the global food supply (65%), make food affordable (57%) and produce more nutritious foods (50%). Further, most agree that GMOs can produce crops more resistant to pests and reduce pesticide use on food crop plants (89). The main concerns reported regarding GMO technology by most respondents included the impact on the environment and human health and the adverse effects on traditional farming practices. About 36% of these respondents indicated that the technology diminishes traditional farming technologies, and 32% reported that it contributes to loss of biodiversity. Notably, 64% reported that GMO technology is a solution to food security and that GM foods are safe. Regarding the use of antimicrobials mainly meant to prevent diseases and access better markets, respondents perceived their use to be associated with a “large level of risk” of antimicrobial resistance (score of 2 on a scale of 1–3) (M = 1.85, SD = 1.06). A total of 56% of the respondents reported that the efforts towards promoting awareness of antibiotic resistance risks and their associated effects on human health are relatively limited. Our findings show that most of the respondents have only observed minimal awareness campaigns. Regarding the governance of the two technologies, 71% and 50% of the respondents reported that scientists and elected officials, respectively, have the greatest roles in the governance of GMOs, with small-scale farmers playing a negligible role. These findings are crucial to the advancement of food innovations that are geared towards achieving food security in Kenya as they highlight the risks associated with the poor governance and implementation of technologies. Therefore, there is a need for a framework for technological risk governance that is sensitive to local values and socio-economic circumstances and that will facilitate the achievement of food security goals