Chapter 6 Global Public Goods and Symbolic Inequality:Dilemmas in Financing GPG with International Aid

Abstract

The traditional debate about public goods,and who should pay for their production and provision,was solved by the principle of equivalence between the benefited group and the taxpayers.In the case of Global Public Goods (GPG),the principle of fiscal equivalence is impossible to apply.That is why who should finance GPG is one of the most complex problems that cannot be solved easily.In the case of GPG,which are outcomes of public policy,official development assistance is the primary tool of financing,creating negative implications for their provision,and also for developing countries.In order to find innovative and effective tools for GPG financing,it is crucial to understand the reasons why international aid should not be considered a valid option.Also,the tools used to finance the preservation of natural global commons offer models that should be applied to social GPG.

About the author

Marta Ochman is a fulltime professor and researcher in School of Government in Tecnológico de Monterrey,Mexico,and member of National Research System.Her research focuses on citizen partici-pation in public policies,civic competencies and social cohesion.She has authored three books,over ten articles in peer-reviewed journals and several book chapters.Her latest publications are:Cómo conso-lidar la democracia en los tiempos del desencanto .Una aproximación desde las competencias ciudadanas.Colofón,2017 (co-authored with Jesus Cantu),and “Financing Development Projects:An Approach by Civil Society Organizations” in Latin American Policy .She has participated in projects funded by CONACyT and the European Commission (FP7).

Introduction

Since the late 1990s,it has been documented that the mecha-nisms to ensure the provision of global public goods (GPG) are insufficient,often ineffective and contribute to a growing inequality worldwide (Kaul,Grunberg and Stern,1999; Kaul et al.,2003a and 2003b; Taekyoon,2013).First,the traditional concepts and theories of public goods,created in the 1950s to justify State intervention in economy,have been overtaken by the reality of the 21st century,marked by globalization and decrease in the State's capabi-lities.Second,decisions about which public goods should be global and who is responsible for producing and providing them,are the result of debates and negotiations marked by asymmetric power relations.Third,in the case of many GPGs,financing tools are limited to international development aid,thus restricting the availability of resources.

Although critics of supporting the provision of GPGs through international development aid focus on the scarcity of these reso-urces,often attributed to the phenomenon of aid fatigue,this article emphasizes another negative externality:the stigmatization of recipients,which increases the symbolic inequality between the actors involved.As an alternative,we propose to adapt tools currently used to finance Global Environmental Public Goods,which offer schemes more varied and neutral in terms of power relations.

Our analysis begins with the review of the traditional debate on public goods,to establish the relevant definitions and distinctions,as well as to demonstrate that the historical context of the debate—the emergence and consolidation of the welfare State—makes it difficult to apply the same provisioning schemes of public goods in national and international spheres,an issue addressed in the second sec-tion.In the third section,we analyze the negative effects of financing GPGs using international aid,applying the concept of deservingness,which is anthropologically related to willingness to help,including support for redistributive policies in modern societies.We conclude by analyzing the advantages of extending the application of Global Environmental Goods financing tools to other categories of Global Public Goods.

The Classic Debate on Public Goods