Freedom, Autonomy, and Harm in Global Supply Chains
Responding to criticism by Gordon Sollars and Frank Englander, this paper highlights a significant tension in recent debates over the ethics of global supply chains. This tension concerns the appropriate focus and normative frame(s) for these debates. My first goal is to make sense of what at first reading seems to be a very odd set of claims: that valuing free, autonomous, and respectful markets entails a “fetish for philosophical purity” that is inconsistent with a moral theory that finds no wrong in harming workers, including the least advantaged among them. Sollars and Englander reach these conclusions, I believe, because their criticism assumes and relies upon the presumption of a global prioritarian frame, one which focuses individual welfare, and which they then apply at the level of individual political and economic actors. Much of Benjamin Powell and Matt Zwolinski’s work, I continue, including their criticism of political and economic activism and Powell’s indictment of organized labor, relies on a similar frame—while expanding the harms to include the freedom and autonomy of would-be sweatshop workers. This prioritarian frame, I argue, is particularly poorly suited to discussion of the ethical responsibilities of individual economic and political actors. We ought to reject it. To make progress on debates over global sweatshops, and the ethics of global supply chains in general, we need a better frame, and better standards of freedom and autonomy, than those invoked by many prominent defenders of sweatshops.
KeywordsSupply chain ethics Freedom and markets Sweatshops
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.
- Arrow, K. J. (1972). Gifts and exchanges. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(4), 343–362.Google Scholar
- Blackston, W. (1978). Commentaries on the laws of England. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
- Bohman, J. (2013). Kant, Madison, and the problem of transnational order: Popular sovereignty in multilevel systems. In A. Niederberger & P. Schink (Eds.), Republican democracy: Law, liberty, and politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
- Cobble, D. S. (2004). The other women’s movement: Workplace justice and social rights in modern America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Dann, O. (2009). Kant’s republicanism and its consequences. In J. Heideking & J. A. Henretta (Eds.), Republicanism in America and the German states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Dasgupta, P. (2004). World poverty: Causes and pathways. In F. Bourguignon & B. Plescovik (Eds.), Accelerating development. Oxford: World Bank and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dasgupta, P. (2009). Matter of trust: Social capital and economic development. Plenary lecture at annual bank conference on development economics. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTABCDESK2009/Resources/Partha-Dasgupta.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2017.
- Freeland, C. (2012). The plutocrats: The rise of the new global super-rich and the fall of everyone else. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
- Gourevitch, A. (2015). From slavery to the cooperative commonwealth: Labor and republican liberty in the nineteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hacker, J., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: How Washington made the rich richer—and turned their back on the middle class. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
- Henderson, J. (2006). The economics of sweatshops. The everyday economist. May 18. http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2006/05/18/the-economics-of-sweatshops/. Accessed May 17, 2017.
- Houston, A. C. (1991). Algernon Sidney and the republican heritage in England and America. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Kant, I. (1996). Practical philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lichtenstein, N. (2003). State of the union: A century of American labor. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Lind, J. (1776). An answer to the declaration of the American congress. London. https://archive.org/details/cihm_20519. Accessed May 17, 2017.
- Locke, J. (2003). Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration. In I. Shapiro (Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Long, D. G. (1977). Bentham on liberty: Jeremy Bentham’s idea of liberty in relation to his utilitarianism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
- Milanovic, B. (2014). Comments on “the past, present, and future of economic growth. In F. Allen et al. (Eds.), Toward a better global economy: Policy implications for citizens worldwide in the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mill, J. S. (1994). Principles of political economy. Oxford: Oxford World Classics.Google Scholar
- Mill, J. S. (1998). On liberty and other essays. Oxford: Oxford World Classics.Google Scholar
- Pettit, P. (2001). A theory of freedom: From the psychology to the politics of agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Pettit, P. (2014). Just freedom: A moral compass for a complex world. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Price, R. (1991). Political writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Rahe, P. A. (1992). Republics ancient and modern: Classical republicanism and the American revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
- Rothkopf, D. (2009). Superclass: The global power elite and the world they are making. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroix.Google Scholar
- Sidney, A. (1687/1990). Discourses concerning Government. In T. G. West (Ed.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
- Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar