Professor Jennifer Rubenstein of the University of Virginia was our guest presenter on Friday. Rubenstein’s paper, entitled “The Ethics of INGO Advocacy or Why It is OK that No One Elected Oxfam,” was as much of a treat as the title suggests. The work is destined to be a chapter in Rubenstein’s forthcoming book on the political theory of International Nongovernmental Organizations.
Rubenstein’s interest in INGO advocacy stems from the intriguing theoretical characteristics of the situation in which they operate. As primarily Western institutions acting outside the West, they justify their actions by appealing to universal global values. This was a more straightforward defense when INGOs were interested primarily in procuring aid, but over a decade ago many groups became convinced that meaningful and lasting solutions to international crises would require not just aid but large-scale policy changes. When Western governments and international institutions included INGOs like Oxfam in international policy-making discussions, The Economist raised the important question of “Who Elected Oxfam?”
In her complex and rigorous paper, Rubenstein concludes that, while Oxfam does engage in varying degrees of representation of those populations they seek to help, they should ultimately not be held to the same standards as a democratically elected government. Rather than be evaluated by the standards of representation, Rubenstein argues that INGOs should be held to the standards of a theory of justice.
The respondent for Rubenstein’s paper was Professor Kit Wellman of WUSTL Philosophy. Wellman opened his remarks by complimenting Rubenstein’s paper as a skillful example of why contemporary Political Theory is such a lively field: though traditional debates about solutions to large scale problems were debates between statists; now there are a number of plausible alternatives to state action, such as non-governmental organizations like Oxfam or inter-governmental or organizations like the United Nations. I’m inclined to agree with Wellman on his point and his compliment.
After summarizing Rubenstein's paper (from memory, impressively), Wellman’s primary contention in his discussion was that Rubenstein’s paper was overly charitable to the arguments of those who disagree with her. For him, the fact that INGOs do not violate human rights, do not coerce, and do not violate state sovereignty make the question of whether or not their actions are morally permissible an open and shut case. Oxfam should no more be held to the standards of representation than The Economist should. As he puts it, “to the extent that these groups are included in the policymaking process, it is due to the strength of the content of their claims.”
In the ensuing general discussion, which was particularly engaging at this workshop, Professor Julia Driver of WUSTL Philosophy extended Wellman’s argument in stronger terms. “Doesn’t morality entail it’s own authority?" she asked.
Carl Wellman, (Kit Wellman’s father, also of WUSTL Philosophy) raised a fantastic question about Rubenstein’s definition of representation. Using an astute comparison to end-of-life medical decision-making, Wellman pushed Rubenstein on why she defines representation according to what the represented individuals think is in their best interest, as opposed to what their best interests actually are. Rubenstein pushed right back by saying that the medical analogy doesn't quite fit since the affected individuals are not unconscious and are generally in a good position to understand their interests.
WPES Director Frank Lovett questioned why Rubenstein thought that the factors she raised which justified exempting INGOs from standards of representation—that they are “second best” actors operating in a non-ideal context—could not be included as subsets in a theory of representation. In other words, why jump over to a theory of justice instead of create a category of representation for various sub-ideal contexts? Rubenstein answered by referring to the allocation problem. Given that INGOs have scare resources, they must choose whom to help, and that is a question better answered by a theory of justice than one of representation.
Thanks and congratulations to Professor Rubenstein on a great paper and a great presentation. If you'd like to continue the conversation, please use the comments below.