The notion of exploitation is prominent in political discourse and policy debates. It is central in analyses of labour relations, especially focusing on the weakest segments of the labour force including women and children (International Labour Office 2017a, 2017b). It features in controversies on surrogate motherhood (Wood 1995; Wertheimer 1996), and on drug-testing and the price of life-saving drugs, especially in developing countries.

We consider a case where consumers are faced with a choice between sweatshop-produced clothing and identical clothing produced in high-income countries. We argue that it is morally better for consumers to purchase clothing produced in sweatshops and then to compensate sweatshop workers for the difference between their actual wage and a fair wage than it is for them either to purchase the sweatshop clothing without this compensatory transfer or to purchase clothing produced in high-income countries.

Robert Nozick allegedly introduced his liberal theory of private ownership as an objection to theories of end-state justice. Nevertheless, we show that, in a stylized framework for the allocation of goods in joint ventures, both approaches can be seen as complementary. More precisely, in such a context, self-ownership (the basis for Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice) followed by voluntary transfer (Nozick’s principle of just transfer) can lead to end-state fairness (as well as Pareto efficiency). Furthermore, under a certain solidarity condition, the only way to achieve end-state fairness, following Nozick’s procedure, is to endorse an egalitarian rule for the initial assignment of rights.

In response to Roemer's reformulation of the Marxian concept of exploitation in terms of comparative wealth distributions (1982, 1996), Vrousalis (2013) treats economic exploitation as an explicitly relational phenomenon in which one party takes advantage of the other's economic vulnerability in order to extract a net benefit. This paper offers a critical assessment of Vrousalis's account, prompting a revised formulation that is analysed in the context of a matching and bargaining model. This analysis yields precise representations of Vrousalis's conditions of economic vulnerability and economic exploitation and facilitates comparison to the alternative conceptions of Marx and Roemer.

This paper argues that, inasmuch as exploitation is a form of injustice, exploitative acts need not be performed intentionally.

This paper explores the foundations of the theory of exploitation as the unequal exchange of labour (UEL). The key intuitions behind all of the main approaches to UEL exploitation are explicitly analysed as a series of formal axioms in a general economic environment. Then, a single domain condition called Labour Exploitation is formulated, which summarizes the foundations of UEL exploitation theory, defines the basic domain of all UEL exploitation forms, and identifies the formal and theoretical framework for the analysis of the appropriate definition of exploitation.

This paper argues that capitalist social relations do not presuppose wage-labour. The paper defends a functional definition of the capitalist relations of production, in terms of what Marx calls the ’subsumption of labour by capital’. I argue that there are at least four modes of subsumption, one transitional to and one transitional from the capitalist mode of production. Unlike the capitalist mode of production, capitalist relations of production are compatible with the absence of a labour market, and even with the absence of workplace authority relations. The ambit of capitalist domination is therefore broader than typically thought.

The publication of the first Report of the International Panel on Social Progress is a significant intellectual event, both because of its hugely ambitious aim – of uniting the world's leading researchers from social sciences and the humanities to develop research-based, multi-disciplinary, non-partisan, action-guiding solutions to the central challenges of our time – and because it represents the completion of a mammoth effort in the service of this aim by a diverse set of 269 authors. In its attempt to synthesize and render accessible to social actors a broad range of the latest social scientific knowledge, as well as in its confidence that knowledge can empower those actors to make progress, it recalls D'Alembert and Diderot's famous Encyclopédie. Indeed, one can say that the Report is a quintessential Enlightenment project (cf. Bury 1920). For example, in his famous Outlines of a Historical View of the Progress of the Human Mind (1796), Condorcet asserts the possibility of an accumulation of empirical and theoretical knowledge and the concomitant expansion in our capacities to alleviate social and natural evils. And Condorcet and many of his contemporaries were motivated to propose political institutions that would enable such an indefinite increase in knowledge so as to bring about the attendant improvement to people's lives.

In 2014, the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote: ‘Some of the smartest thinkers on problems at home and around the world are university professors, but most of them just don't matter in today's great debates … I write this in sorrow, for I considered an academic career and deeply admire the wisdom found on university campuses. So, professors, don't cloister yourselves like medieval monks – we need you!’ At that time, a group of academics were working to launch the International Panel on Social Progress, with the aim of preparing a report analysing the current prospects for improving our societies.1 It gathered about 300 researchers from more than 40 countries and from all disciplines of the social sciences, law and philosophy.

Chapter 3 discusses the causes, patterns and dynamics of inequalities in an exhaustive review of the literature on inequality of income, expenditure and wealth among individuals and households. It emphasizes how these inequalities reflect and affect inequality along various dimensions, including political freedom, economic opportunity, health, education and social outcomes. It gives three sets of policy recommendations for different populations: (i) policies to improve the conditions among the poor, the vulnerable and the socially excluded; (ii) policies geared towards supporting the growth and sustainability of a strong middle class; and (iii) policies that seek to curb concentration of income and wealth at the top (121). Some of these policy recommendations are quite consistent with what has often been proposed for the past three decades, which is that redistributive policies or welfare at the bottom should benefit the least well-off and address inequality.

The authors of Chapter 7, The Future of Work, have made a thorough review of recent labour market trends. In telling a global story, the authors provide a vision of the future of work that should guide policy initiatives for the creation of desirable jobs for all. This vision is one where economic growth is consistent with ecological sustainability; with full and fair employment and no discrimination; where workers control their time and tasks; and where there are inclusive labour market institutions. The policies that the authors put forward to advance this vision include flexibility in the rules related to employment protection to avoid deeper segmentation of the labour market; the creation of social protection systems to cover all workers; the provision of broad access to education and skill formation at different stages of life; the guarantee of equal opportunities and non-discrimination; and respect for collective bargaining.

Over the past 30 years, the world has experienced a profound transformation, becoming both more open and more prosperous. Whereas in 1985 more than half of the countries worldwide were under authoritarian rule, most countries today are considered electoral democracies (Economist Intelligence Unit 2017). Since 1990, more than a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty (World Bank 2016), while well-being indicators have improved dramatically on a global level, especially in terms of health and education (International Idea 2017).

Chapter 13 covers a broad waterfront, encompassing digital transformation, the unevenness in access to new technologies, the complex power dynamics that underpin the new media and communication space, the shifting role of journalism in enabling (or not) public knowledge, and the challenges and opportunities for social progress in media access, with particular attention focused on the role of citizen journalism and alternative media.

The contributors to this symposium have brought up many important points in their discussions of five chapters of the Report, and we are very grateful to them. Since the authors of the chapters would be better able to respond to many of the specific comments, we will confine ourselves here to a brief discussion of a few major issues highlighted by the contributors. We are in particular inspired by the following comments: Alina Rocha Menocal's point about the role of the state and committed elites; James Deane's description of the deep transformation of the media scene by new forms of communication; Uma Rani's emphasis on the importance of structural transformation and social care policies; and Diana Alarcon's call for paying greater attention to different levels of development and to macroeconomic policy.