Global Justice Index Report 2019
Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (Fudan IAS)
The Fudan IAS acknowledges the generous support it has received from institutions such as the Fudan University School of International Relations and Public Affairs, the Shanghai “Gao Feng” Disciplinary Supporting Funds, Global Policy, Rutgers University, as well as useful comments and suggestions on this report from the following individuals: Arthur Boutellis (International Peace Institute), Daniel Callies (UC San Diego), Jean Marc Coicaud (Rutgers University), Selda Dagistanli (Western Sydney University), Marco Dugato (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore), Sakiko Fukuda-Parr (The New School, New York), Yannick Glemarec (Executive Director, UN Green Climate Fund), Carlos Manuel Gradin Lago (UNU-WIDER, United Nations University World Institute for Development), Terry Lynn Karl (Stanford University), Milorad Kovacevic (Chief of Statistics, UN Human Development Report Office), Jane Mansbridge (Harvard University) and Philippe Schmitter (European University Institute). We are also grateful for helpful advice, comments and suggestions from Yannick Glemarec, Executive Director, UN Green Climate Fund, and Milorad Kovacevic, Chief of Statistics, UN Human Development Report Office.
Co-Principal Investigators:
Sujian Guo
Jean Marc Coicaud
Research Team/Contributors (alphabetical order):
Yanfeng Gu (team leader)
Xuan Qin
Wen Qu
Zhongyuan Wang
Chunman Zhang
Tiantian Zhang
Project Coordinator:
Xi Lin
Research Assistants:
Jingpu Chen, Xinyu Dai, Ziheng Guo, Xiaoyuan Li, Yawen Lin, Muye Nanshan, Zhenyu Wang, Xiaolan Xia, and Yuqing Zhang
Global Justice Index Report 2020
Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (Fudan IAS)
The Global Justice Index is a multiyear research project conducted at the Fudan-IAS to conceptualize and measure each country’s contribution to achieving greater global justice. In 2019, we provided our first-year achievements with the rankings of nation-states at the global level from 2010 to 2017. Based on the results, we have published a book in Chinese and an academic paper in English, which has received widespread attention. Building on the success of the previous year’s work, in 2020, we intend to provide our second-year results with the rankings of nation-states at the global level from 2010 to 2018.
This year’s Global Justice Index study is not simply a continuation of last year’s work. To further improve the quality of our index, we have made a few major modifications. First of all, we have perfected our selection of issue areas and indicators by adding a brand new issue area and more indicators to our study. In the Global Justice Index (2019), we have selected nine issues areas to construct the index. The issue of refugees has been included in this year’s Global Justice Index as more and more attention has been devoted to the fermenting refugee crisis. For other issue areas, indicator systems have been either kept unchanged or improved. Second, we have slightly modified our research methodology to better calculate the index (for more information, please see the next section). Third, we have changed our indicators and included more data in our calculation. Last, we have strengthened our analysis section by incorporating and discussing more literature and policy implications. As such, readers from different backgrounds can all benefit.
According to the two major principles of CBDR-RC and CDDR, we established a ten-issue index system: (1) climate change (global warming), (2) peacekeeping, (3) humanitarian aid, (4) terrorism and armed conflicts, (5) cross-national criminal police cooperation, (6) refugee, (7) anti-poverty, (8) education, (9) public health, and (10) the protection of women and children.
Our results show that the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Belgium, Finland and Italy ranked the top ten in the global justice index in 2018 that includes all issues. In addition, the lowest-ranked countries come from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and that, apart from China, the highest-ranked countries come from Europe and North America, affirming that the rank of global justice index highly correlates with economic development.
Global Justice Index Report 2021
Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (Fudan IAS)
The Global Justice Index is a multiyear research project conducted at Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (Fudan-IAS) to conceptualize and measure the contributions of each country to achieving greater global justice. Over the past two years, we have published a book in Chinese and several academic papers in English to present the justice rankings of nation-states at the global level from 2010 to 2017 developed according to the Global Justice Index (2019) and nation-states’ rankings at the global level from 2010 to 2018 on the index (2020). Building on the success of this earlier work, here we provide our third-year results. including the rankings to promote global justice by nation-states at the global level as assessed in their 2019 data. This year’s report on Global Justice Index (2021) consists of the following five main sections: introduction, methodology, results, analysis, and conclusion.
In the introduction, we reiterate our theoretical innovation in the creation of our index by discussing the development of the conceptual framework to support and justify our selection of issues, dimensions, and indicators for measurement. Although much of this content is discussed introduced in previous years’ reports, we strongly believe that it is necessary to present it again this year. Doing so has the merit of maintaining the integrity of this year’s report. In addition, we have made some major changes in this year’s report compared with the reports published in 2020 and 2021. In the results section, we include the rankings of nation-states’ contribution to global justice across 10 issue areas for 2019. Following the results section, we provide regional comparisons accompanied by detailed policy analysis presented with the assistance of various visualization tools. In the conclusion section, we report the key findings, elaborate possible applications and certain limitations of the index, and describe the potential for further research in global justice and the policy implications for using our materials or approach in advancing global justice in the future.
Many agree that global justice is a broad concept incorporating multilevel and multidimensional aspects rooted in both normative and empirical realities. A coherent, integrated theoretical framework that covers this normative basis and various empirical dimensions is, therefore, necessary to address some of the basic and important research questions that fall under this area of study. Our Global Justice Index research begins with a conceptualization of global justice reported in the theoretical paper “Conceptualizing and Measuring Global Justice: Theories, Concepts, Principles and Indicators”, coauthored by the project leaders Sujian Guo et al. and published in Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences (Vol. 12, No. 4, 2019), which discusses the theories, concepts, evaluative principles, and methodologies involved in the study of global justice. We recommend that readers read it along with this year’s report.
In our theoretical paper (Guo et al. 2019), we clarify how to global justice should be conceptualized, how operationalized measurement dimensions and indicators can be selected and theoretically justified, and how these measurements can be made conceptually consistent with the concept of global justice. These are challenging questions. By synthesizing multiple theories and intellectual traditions drawn from a range of social, cultural, and political contexts, we have come to conceptualize global justice centering on three main foundational elements—rights, goods, and virtue—to develop a coherent theoretical framework on a normative basis for the following measurements. Our rights-based conceptualization focuses on the basic principles, rules, and sources of legitimacy of justice (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; Rawls 1971, 1999). Our goods-based conceptualization concentrates on the material and institutional supports that the governments or institutions are obliged to provide (Arneson 1989; Freeman 2006; Nussbaum 2006, 2011; Richardson 2006). Finally, our virtue-based conceptualization understands justice to be a virtue that an individual seeks to pursue rather than a regulation imposed from the outside that an individual must comply with (Mo 2003). The relationship among the three conceptual approaches are necessarily interdependent rather than separate, and the must be components of a holistic whole. The three approaches must also be seen as complementary instead of competing, such that the rights-based conceptualization forms the basic structure as its bones, the goods-based conceptualization provides substantial material support as the muscles, and the virtue-based conceptualization, which emphasizes personal motivation and internalized willingness, is the heart in this body of justice (Guo et al. 2019).
Using this framework, we propose two evaluative principles to bridge the gap between theory and practice to determine and justify our selection of issue areas for evaluation. We call these two principles Common but Differentiated and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) and Cosmopolitan but Due-diligence Responsibilities (CDDR). CBDR-RC incorporates those issues “for which no single nation-state can be held directly accountable or responsible, matters that can only be tackled through the globally concerted efforts of all stakeholders” (Guo et al. 2019). For example, it is the responsibility of all to protect the climate system and ecological balance, and environmental protection cannot be handled by any country on its own. The principle of CBDR-RC, first adopted by the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFFCC) and reaffirmed in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, combines normative legitimacy with historical rationality. Although the principle was first developed to establish the responsibilities of different countries for climate change, it has been expanded and applied to other questions of global justice, such as combating transnational crime and global peacekeeping.
The CDDR principle asserts that “all-nation-states are morally obligated to provide cosmopolitan aid, in which context the least advantaged will have a due-diligent responsibility” (Guo et al. 2019). This principle is based on the concept of mutual accountability proposed in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, adopted in 2005 at the Second High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness to improve cooperation among actors in aid and development. This principle considers aid obligations to be part of domestic affairs, such as anti-poverty and education policy, in the context of which nation-states are expected to provide material and institutional assistance to the citizenry within their territories.
Using CBDR-RC and CDDR, we have selected two clusters of global justice issue areas for practical measurement. The issue areas that relate to CBDR-RC are (1) climate change (global warming), (2) peacekeeping, (3) humanitarian aid, (4) terrorism and armed conflicts, (5) cross-national criminal police cooperation, and (6) refugee. The issue areas relating to CDDR are (7) anti-poverty, (8) education, (9) public health, and (10) the protection of women and children.
This year’s Global Justice Index study is not merely a continuation of previous work. While we have retained our issue areas, indicator systems, data sources, and method of constructing the Global Justice Index as these appeared in the Global Justice Report (2020), we have made a few major changes. The most important change this year is that we now report results per single year results instead of over multiple years. We have also strengthened our analysis of the ranking results by engaging with the literature to a greater extent, noting policy implications, and entering further into discussions of the specifics of some key countries.
Global Justice Index Report 2022
Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (Fudan IAS)
The Global Justice Index is an ongoing research project conducted by Fudan-IAS to measure the level of global justice achieved by nation-states. Our goal is to provide readers with an accurate understanding of each country’s contribution to global jus tice as a whole. We have published results from 2010 to 2019 and are now presenting our fourth-year results for 2020. This year’s report contains four sections: an introduction, findings, main results, and a conclusion.
The Global Justice Index study for 2020 takes the form of an updated version of previous years’ reports. This year, we take into account changes to global jus tice caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, the global COVID-19 pandemic had a profound effect on global justice. It intensified economic inequality, widened gender gaps, and increased discrimination against vulnerable populations. A variety of measures have been implemented to promote global justice in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These include the provision of economic relief to families and businesses, expanding access to healthcare, increasing the use of digital technology to bridge the digital divide, protecting vulnerable populations from discrimination, and strengthening international cooperation. To achieve an accurate measurement of each country’s contribution to greater global justice, we have incorporated novel indicators in certain issue areas (health and humanitarian aids), expanded the number of countries (education), and strengthened our analysis by adding a discussion of the influence of the pandemic. However, our methodology, main indicator system, and data sources remain consistent with those of last year’s report to enable cross-comparison.
In our introduction, we discuss the development of a conceptual framework to justify our choice of issues, dimensions, and indicators for measurement. Although this was covered in previous reports, it is important to repeat it here as part of maintaining the integrity of this year’s Global Justice Index research. Global justice is widely understood to be a complex concept including multiple components belonging to both normative and empirical realities, requiring an integrated theoretical framework that covers these aspects. In our theoretical paper, published in 2019, we clarified our conceptualization of global justice and presented our issue-area system based on it.
Our conceptualization of global justice synthesizes multiple theories and intellectual traditions from different social, cultural, and political contexts. We recognize three main approaches—rights-based, goods-based, and virtue-based—as the foundation for a coherent theoretical framework with a normative basis for measurement. A rights-based approach focuses on the principles, rules, and sources of legitimacy. A goods-based approach concentrates on the material and institutional support provided by governments or institutions. A virtue-based approach considers justice to be something an individual must pursue rather than comply with. The relationship between these three is interdependent, forming one holistic whole. They all work together, as follows: the rights-based conceptualization provides the basic structure (the bones), the goods-based conceptualization provides substantial material support (the muscles), and the virtue-focused conceptualization provides personal motivation and internalized willingness (the heart).
Based on this theoretical framework, we proposed two evaluative principles to better understand and justify the selection of issue areas for evaluation. These are Common but Differentiated and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) and Cosmopolitan but Due-diligent Responsibilities (CDDR). CBDR-RC addresses the issues “for which no single nation-state can be held directly accountable or responsible, matters that can only be tackled through the globally concerted efforts of all stake holders.” For example, issues such as climate change require a collective effort on the part of all countries to be adequately addressed, and that this effort cannot be undertaken by one nation alone. The second principle, CDDR, asserts that “all nation-states are morally obligated to provide cosmopolitan aid, in which context the least advantaged will have a due-diligent responsibility” (Guo et al. 2019). This principle is based on the concept of mutual accountability as proposed in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, adopted in 2005 at the Second High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness to promote better cooperation between actors in aid and development. According to this principle, anti-poverty and education policies are part of domestic affairs, and nation-states are expected to provide material and institutional assistance to their citizenry within their territories.
Drawing on the principles of CBDR-RC and CDDR, we have selected two clusters of global justice issue areas in our measurement. The issue areas that relate to CBDR-RC are (1) climate change (global warming), (2) peacekeeping, (3) humanitarian aid, (4) terrorism and armed conflict, (5) cross-national criminal police cooperation, and (6) refugees. The issue areas that relate to CDDR are (7) anti-poverty, (8) education, (9) public health, and (10) the protection of women and children. In the following sections, we provide rankings for individual nations’ contributions to global justice across these 10 issue areas for 2020. We also provide regional com parisons, detailed policy analysis, and visualization tools to enable a more accurate understanding of each country’s contribution to achieving global justice.
Global Justice Index Report 2023
Fudan Institute for Advanced Study in Social Sciences (Fudan IAS)
The Global Justice Index is an ongoing research project conducted by Fudan-IAS to measure the level of global justice achieved by nation-states. From the data collected in this project, we provide a framework for understanding the contribution each country made to greater global justice and show the all-county rankings for each topic. We have published results for yeas from 2010 to 2020 and are now presenting our fifth year of results, covering data from 2021. Our report consists of four sections: an introduction, findings, main results, and a conclusion.
Our introduction discusses the conceptual framework for selecting issues, dimensions, and measures. It is important to repeat this information to maintain the integrity of this year’s Global Justice Index research, although it has not changed from previous reports. The concept of global justice is widely recognized as a complex one, involving multiple components falling under both normative and empirical realities, requiring an integrated theoretical framework that covers both of these aspects. We clarified our conceptualization of global justice in a theoretical paper and discussed our issue area system on this basis.
Our understanding of global justice draws on diverse theories and intellectual traditions ranging across social, cultural, and political contexts. We recognize three main approaches—rights-based, goods-based, and virtue-based—as the foundations for a coherent theoretical framework that would have a normative basis for measurement. A rights-based approach centers on principles, rules, and the legitimacy of sources. It emphasizes fundamental entitlements and legal protections. A goods-based approach shifts the focus to material and institutional support provided by governments or institutions. It considers the tangible resources necessary for well-being. A virtue-based approach forms a personal pursuit, rather than mere compliance. Motivation and internal willingness drive ethical behavior. These three facets intertwine to form a holistic whole. The rights-based structure provides the foundation (the bones of the body of this report), the goods-based aspect supplies substance (forming the muscle and flesh), and the virtue-focused dimension brings purpose (as the heart).
In our theoretical framework, we propose two evaluative principles to guide the selection of issue areas for assessment. The first principle is the Common but Differentiated and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), which addresses issues “for which no single nation-state can be held directly accountable or responsible, matters that can only be tackled through the globally concerted efforts of all stakeholders”. For instance, addressing climate change requires collaboration across countries, as no single nation can address it alone. The second principle is that of Cosmopolitan but Due-diligent Responsibilities (CDDR). This principle holds that “all-nation-states are morally obligated to provide cosmopolitan aid, in which context the least advantaged will have a due-diligent responsibility”. This concept aligns with the idea of mutual accountability, as outlined in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which was adopted in 2005 at the Second High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness to promote improved cooperation among actors in aid and development. According to this principle, all nation-states have a moral obligation to provide cosmopolitan aid, and even the least advantaged have a due-diligent responsibility. Nation-states are expected to offer material and institutional assistance within their territories, including antipoverty measures and education policies.
Following out the principles of CBDR-RC and CDDR, we have selected two clusters of issue areas for global justice in our measurement. The issue areas relating to CBDR-RC are (1) climate change (global warming), (2) peacekeeping, (3) humanitarian aid, (4) terrorism and armed conflicts, (5) cross-national criminal police cooperation, and (6) refugee concerns. The issue areas relating to CDDR are (7) antipoverty, (8) education, (9) public health, and (10) the protection of women and children. In the following sections, we provide rankings for nations’ contribution to global justice across these 10 issue areas for 2021. We also incorporate regional comparisons, in depth policy analyses, and visualization tools to enhance our understanding of the role that each country has played in advancing global justice.
This Global Justice Index report 2023 forms an updated version of previous years’ reports, but it is not simply a continuation of them. We have been improving our index year by year to with changes that have taken place globally. For example, to better account for the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 and related aspects of justice, we incorporated new indicators in certain issue areas (health and humanitarian aid) to measure nations’ contributions to promoting global justice in response to COVID-19. In addition, we have bolstered our analysis section by including additional literature and policy implications while delving further into the data from the key countries. We also refined our imputation methodology to better address the challenge of missing data, which has been a persistent issue in compiling our report. Through adopting a more integrated approach utilizing data across issues, we have significantly enhanced the efficacy of our imputation process. These methodological advancements have produced to a more reliable index, with increased imputation rates and reduced errors, allowing for a broader comparison of countries. To maintain comparability and continuity, our methodology, main indicator system, and sources of data remain consistent with last year’s report.