According to such a contract then, for example, economic well-being can become a reality or all involved in the world market by imposing the same ground rules for all participants. In such an arrangement, the rule-making party would not be allowed to bend or break the policy in its own favor, but instead the marketplace would be leveled for the benefit of all instead o for just a few. This is the principle according to which the Malawian government made its decision to ignore the existing, unfair policy regarding fertilizer subsidies.
According to Dugger, the government found the extreme conditions in its country unacceptable, particularly as it saw subsidies as a solution to this. Furthermore, the government viewed the well-being of its people as its responsibility, and based its decision upon this rather than upon seeking the favor of world powers. In terms of Donaldson and Dunfee's theory, this is a decision based upon a contract between the government and its people upon a local scale, where the well-being of the country takes precedence over possible future economic benefits on a more global and political scale. Personally, I believe that the Malawian government was correct in its decision. Certainly, it smacks of unethical behavior in the extreme to impose a damaging policy such as that relating to fertilizer subsidies only upon the powerless while the powerful are allowed to do as it sees fit. And indeed the case itself proves the point: Fertilizer subsidies were extremely effective, as Malawi solved a large amount of its economic problems simply by providing its farmers with subsidies.
There could...
Malawi's beneficiaries for example could refuse their provisions for alleviation to the country's poor. The country could also be isolated from the global marketplace. It is however difficult to see how the country could have effectively competed while languishing in its previous condition. On the positive side, the concrete evidence of the effect of subsidizing on the Malawian economy could also have global repercussions of the subsidy policy for other poor countries.
Both on a global scale and also in terms of simple humanity, it is without a doubt the ethical responsibility of the global rich to alleviate the suffering of the poor around the world. Rather than doing this via providing increasingly inadequate resources, a much more effective approach would be via a change in currently damaging policies. If governments and nations are empowered to help themselves, they can grow economically to eventually contribute to the global marketplace and ultimately to the benefit of the global community as well. Perhaps then fewer protesters would focus their energy on the evils of globalization.
Sources
Dugger, Celia W. "Ending Famine, Simply by Ignoring the Experts." New York Times, December 2, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/africa/02malawi.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Madsen, Peter. "Ethics and Policies Regulating Multinational Enterprise." H.J. Heinz School of public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University, 2001. http://www.spea.indiana.edu/tac/colloquia/2001/pdf/Madsen%20.pdf
