The Introduction sets the scene for the book’s chapters and analysis. On the northern periphery of Nairobi, in southern Kiambu County, the city’s expansion into a landscape of poor smallholders is bringing new opportunities, dilemmas, and conflicts. Profoundly shaped by Kenya’s colonial history, Kiambu’s ‘workers with patches of land’ struggle to sustain their households while the skyrocketing price of land ratchets up gendered and generational tensions over their meagre plots, with consequences for class futures. Land sale by senior men turns would-be inheritors, their young adult sons, into landless and land-poor paupers, heightening their exposure to economic precarity. The Introduction sets out how these dynamics are lived at the site of kinship, and how moral principles of patrilineal obligation and land retention fail in the face of market opportunity. Within this context, the Introduction sets out the book’s exploration of how Kiambu’s young men struggle to sustain hopes for middle-class lifestyles as the economic ground shifts beneath their feet.

How much do we care when no one is looking? A patient with critical injury and vulnerable to bias—as an uninsured Person of Color experiencing homelessness and social isolation, with a history of mental illness and drug use— experiences barriers to receiving necessary treatment and standard care. When a patient is unable to ask for help, and has no family member or friend to help, what standard of care can they hope to receive? Can the quality of care provided to unrepresented patients represent a hospital’s culture of care? The writer wonders whether to “stay in my lane” and focus only on the ethical question prompting consultation, or if the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence justify speaking up about substandard care. To mitigate the risk of acting as the “ethics police” by engaging in micromanagement of patient care, the writer describes efforts to expand ethics’ scope to change systemic and cultural attitudes by establishing preventative measures to identify and combat bias and preemptive judgments of futility.

On 9 September 1976, Mao passed away, marking the end of the radical socialist experiment and the beginning of marketized reforms. In the face of growing social grievances sparked by marketized reforms, in the early 2000s the Hu Jintao administration (2002–2012) changed gear toward social protection. This chapter outlines the regime of general labour precarity in the post-Mao era: socialist surplus appropriation has been overhauled and given way to exploitation; the social exclusion system has been softened and recalibrated; despite efforts of decommodification, the recommodification of healthcare, education, and housing has created the ‘three new great mountains’ over Chinese people.

The 1958–1965 period witnessed the rise and fall of the Great Leap Forward. During this period, China saw the second and most radical switch between decentralized and recentralized industrialization in the Mao era, and a further swing in labour policy towards promoting temporary employment. This chapter begins by presenting an overview of the economic and political circumstances of this period. It then examines how the rise and fall of the Great Leap Forward, combined with the shift in labour policy, dramatically redrew the exclusion system, thus affecting the scale and conditions of those in precarious urban employment.

This chapter looks at Palestinian doctors’ interactions with their Jewish counterparts as both a political and a professional rivalry. Jewish doctors treated Arab patients, and Jewish and Arab doctors worked together in government institutions, shared clinics, consulted each other, and fought common enemies of morbidity and mortality on the same land. The chapter examines Jewish-Arab interdependency and rivalry, bringing forward its articulations in the Arab and Hebrew press while underlining the effects of intercommunal violence on this encounter and attempts at direct cooperation. At the heart of this chapter is the mass migration of German-Jewish doctors to Palestine following the Nazi takeover, and the ways in which it affected relationships within the medical profession.

The issue of international membership introduces the related issue of international rights holding. International rights holding amounts to being “in”—that is, being recognized as legitimate and, as such, as having rights. But the membership process through which a collective actor gets “in” and comes to enjoy the status of rights holder also has a selective and exclusionary character. There is an interrelated process of denial of rights holding for other collective actors. An illustration of how international membership associated with international rights holding can have this selective and excluding effect is the impact of international law on rights holding in the framework of colonialism—an impact so significant that it continues to have a legacy today. Thus, the selective character of international membership has a cost for international rights holding not simply for the societies at odds with the requirements of statehood but also for their individual members.

Natural rights can justify legal rights to control and dispose of those resources exclusively – that is, rights of ownership. Ownership is justified on moral grounds when it seems likely in practice to help people acquire and use resources more effectively than alternate regimes would – especially, a system in which resources were open for everyone’s access and use and people enjoyed them with usufructs. This chapter studies four core or paradigm cases in which ownership facilitates use enough to be legitimate. One (associated with Aristotle) stresses ownership’s tendency to reduce disputes over property; another (associated with St. Thomas Aquinas) focuses on how ownership encourages careful management of resources; a third (Locke) focuses on how ownership incentivizes people labor and productivity; and the last (James Madison and other American founders) focuses on ownership’s securing privacy and autonomy for owners’ own preferred uses. This chapter considers egalitarian critiques of ownership, especially by Jeremy Waldron, Joseph Singer, G.A. Cohen, Liam Murphy, and Thomas Nagel. To define ownership, this chapter relies on conceptual work by A.M. Honore and J.E. Penner.

This chapter studies the property’s analytical structure. The most basic concept for property is the concept of a usufruct. The conceptual model for usufructs describes informal property right and simple legal rights like easements and common law water rights. That model also describes the features of the natural rights that conventional property institutions should secure. Usufructs consist of in rem and immunized claim-rights in relation to separable resources, they possess institutional status, and they are structured to perform the function of facilitating productive use as studied in Chapters 4 and 5. The foregoing definition of a usufruct is a definition in relation to a focal or core case. This chapter contrasts its conceptual claims with exclusion theories and bundle of rights theories.

Petersen didn’t set out to be a researcher, much less a developmental scientist, but found that she loved it! Her journey was unusual but productive, adding to knowledge of adolescence, and especially correlates of puberty. She also contributed to gender issues in research as well as attention to rigorous statistical and psychometric methods. Her tendency to be attracted to interesting opportunities led her to additional roles, particularly leadership. This had the unfortunate effect of truncating her research career, though not her writing. Her experiences in research and especially with leadership roles were influenced by issues of sexism and other kids of exclusion, leading to her current emphases on global engagement and capacity building. The net result has been a satisfying life.

This chapter explores inclusions and exclusions embedded within the Omani economy as experienced by citizens and foreigners. The chapter shows, first, that contestations around labour market belonging and experiences emerge within the local structures of segmentation and the global nature of Oman’s labour market. Second, in order to understand economic belonging and citizenship in the Gulf, class has to take a central role. The production of difference and competing identities of local regionalism, tribal and community affiliation, religion, interior and coastal cultures, race, heritage, and gender all matter but need to be understood alongside the intervening variable of class. The subjectivity of experiences and perceptions of inclusion and exclusion exposes how the politics and practice of difference in global capitalism produces tensions, value, and forms of power that manifest in labour and class relations. These dynamics also generate resistance and contestation around the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion.

This chapter focuses on the barriers that LGBTIQ people continue to experience across a range of sectors, including the workplace, schools, healthcare and social care provision, and counselling and psychological services. Whilst some positive changes have occurred, this chapter highlights the ongoing (and renewed) resistance to the inclusion of LGBTIQ people. An overview of research on resistance to the inclusion of LGBTIQ people within foster care services and sports and resistance to the inclusion of certain LGBTIQ people (e.g., LGBTIQ refugees, disabled LGBTIQ people) within services is also provided. The chapter highlights the importance of both equity and liberatory practices in the removal of barriers to inclusion.

The title of this chapter points to the frequent use of the word ‘we’ in Brexit discourse before and after the referendum. The pronoun ‘we’ in Brexitspeak almost always serves the exclusion of other nations or those in the domestic arena perceived as enemies of ‘the people’. Three different cases of the uses of ‘we’ are examined, each of which in their different ways shows how ‘we’ expressed an exclusionary notion of national identity. One of these cases shows how Brexitspeak persisted in the years after the referendum, and included the long-standing idea, at all levels of society, that ‘we’ speak only English. The second case is the 2013 speech by the then prime minister David Cameron, who favoured remaining in the EU. That speech, which announced the referendum, was apparently intended to placate the Eurosceptics and neutralise UKIP’s attractiveness. The speech repeatedly used ‘we’, embedded in an exceptionalist narrative of British greatness. Cameron’s speech failed in its aims and in fact boosted national-populist discourse. It was in tune with Farage’s own speeches of the same year, which is the third case of Brexiter ‘we’ examined in this chapter.

In this chapter, we discuss the relationship of individual personal thriving to fairness and worthiness by exploring the concept of epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice refers to the rejection of people’s capacity as knowers, such that these individuals are treated as being less knowledgeable and less believable than other people, frequently on the basis of their social identities. In the first half of the chapter, we will explain how epistemic injustices take place and how they interrupt human thriving. In the second half of the chapter, we will profile the ways that psychologists and others can work to prevent epistemic injustice.

I offer an overview and analysis of charitable giving in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia, and explore its linkages to politics. I study giving at home and abroad, by governments, non-governmental organizations, ruling elites, and private actors, and doctrinally connected giving. I examine how these entities give, to whom they give and why they give as they do. I highlight several key findings: First, in three of the four countries, the most active and best endowed foundations have been created by (members of) ruling families or prominent politico-religious associations; second, private giving tends to concentrate on family, tribe, ethnic community; third, religious precepts are routinely modified to appease a particular social category; fourth, with few exceptions, migrant workers are excluded from access to charity. These findings suggest that charitable giving, while intrinsic to the practice of Islam, may be instrumentalized to advance secular interests: 1) gather information about society, 2) assert relationships of authority and control, 3) shore up allegiance (to a ruler and/or an ideology), 4) consolidate a definition of community.

This chapter seeks keywords and concepts that will enable us to grasp the contradictory and conflictive globality of the current moment and sharpen our analysis of equally contradictory and conflictive global pasts. In a plea to move beyond equating the global with openness, connection, and integration, I address the role of closure, boundaries, and limits in global history in a wider sense. For this purpose, I explore in an experimental and deliberately open-ended fashion how thinking about global spherescan be utilised fruitfully for the current practice of history writing. The first part explores the radically inclusive yet claustrophobic vision of the globe as a closed sphere from which there is no escape. Building on earlier closed-world and one-world discourses, this thinking gained prominence after the Second World War in the face of the threat of nuclear destruction and environmental degradation. I then move to think about the globe as composed of many bounded spheres – geopolitical but also social. Here, I take central examples from the realm of communication and language and discusses the public sphere as an exclusionary rather than inclusionary figure of thought.