{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021742738589211618, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0031535269709543567, 'mean_word_length': 5.290187891440501, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Free Movement: Ethical Issues in the Transnational Migration of People and of Money . Edited by Brian Barry and Robert E. Goodin. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. 300p. $45.00 cloth, $16.95 paper.

This book considers two transnational movements in international justice: that of people and that of income and wealth. Often considered separately, questions about immigration policy and about a state's international distributive rights and responsibilities are, in fact, closely related at both the theoretical and the policy levels. One of the main virtues of this book is to recognize these relationships and make them a subject of discussion. All but two of the papers in this volume were originally prepared for a conference held in September 1989 at Mont Saint Michel and organized by the Ethikon Institute, a small, California-based organization devoted to increasing tolerance and understanding of different traditions of moral thought. The distinguishing feature of the institute's approach is to explore how a common set of problems (in this case, those arising from international movements of people and money) appears from a variety of theoretical perspectives: liberal egalitarianism, libertarianism, Marxism, natural law, and political realism. If there is an overarching philosophical aim, in addition to advancing our grasp of the two sets of substantive problems both on their own and in relation to each other, it is to see whether and how the type of normative theory that one accepts influences one's views on matters of policy—a question of obvious philosophical, as well as practical, interest. The book consists of five main sections, one for each of the theoretical perspectives. Each section contains one paper on migration of people and one on transfers of money and a commentary. The intent was that the lead papers in each section should explore the application of that section's theoretical perspective to the issue at hand, while the commentary would both criticize and probe connections between the perspective's approach to the two substantive issues. Although this structure suggests a grand, even rigid, symmetry, the volume is, in fact, somewhat uneven. International migration is treated in considerably more philosophical depth than international capital flows. Among the five theoretical perspectives, only three (liberalism, libertarianism, and natural law) are really carried through as the overall program would seem to require. Accordingly, the overarching aim of testing the connection between theoretical commitments and views about policy is only partly realized. There is, nevertheless, much of value in this book. Indeed, the sum of the parts may be greater than the whole. For example, there is an interesting exchange between Joseph Carens and James Woodward as to whether (as Carens argues) a liberal egalitarian view of distributive justice argues for significantly less restrictive immigration policies than those typically found in the industrial democracies. Hillel Steiner's paper on libertarianism and immigration policy advances a provocative view about the policy question and also contributes valuable observations about the interpretation (and misinterpretation) of libertarianism. There is a good paper by Paul Weithman on natural law and international justice and a fine commentary (really an original paper) by Philippe van Parijs best characterized as an attempt to address both sets of normative issues from a perspective inspired by (but only problematically within) the modern Marxist tradition. With the exception of the paper by Weithman, philosophically inclined readers are likely to find more of interest in the papers on immigration policy than in those on international capital and income flows. Some of the latter (e.g., those by I. M. D. Little and Deepak Lai) are engaging in their own right; but the major normative questions are less successfully joined than in the papers on migration of people. The reason, I suspect, is that these questions are less well defined politically and that the policy instruments to alter prevailing international flows of income and wealth are both complex and obscure. There has been considerable progress in the last decade in the development of views about principles of international distributive justice; but as these papers illustrate, the difficult problems of application (really problems for normative international political economy) still await their proper formulation. The volume as a whole was stimulated by the perception that governments seem to take contrasting views of the two kinds of movement considered here: they restrict inflows of people but welcome inflows (and resist outflows) of money. There is room to wonder why one would regard this as noteworthy. Perhaps, as Robert Goodin suggests, it was thought that governments should address these issues in some way consistently. But this thought itself is puzzling: just as the immigration of people and the immigration (or emigration) of money pose different political issues and generate different coalitions, so they pose different theoretical problems (not entirely different, of course, but different enough to matter). For example, flows of people have the potential to bring about rapid and destabilizing changes in the character of political and social life and in the distribution of income and wealth within the state. The domestic distributional and social effects of transnational flows of money, on the other hand, are secondorder and hence more easily detached from the flows themselves. Thus, concerns that might be classified as broadly communitarian are only indirectly implicated in thinking about international distributive justice but could be decisive in discourse about immigration policy. While, in the end, the impression may prove to be wrong, it should not seem unlikely at the outset that a philosophically consistent view about these subjects could generate asymmetric policy conclusions.