Thomas Pogges’ Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Essential Medicines breaks down the complex issue revolving around the pharmaceutical business and their effect on the health of poor humans around the globe. This paper outlines the “full-pull plan”, which creates a free market system for affordable essential healthcare that serves everyone. However, there are limitations, especially in its implementation. Since the resolution is multi-stepped, I would like to first focus on the complexities of justifying the plan to affluent citizens and their representatives.
I do believe that we should implement the plan, if possible, but only after there is a certain level of economic development in the countries of the world. In page 35, Pogges says that if all the countries in the world opt into this program, it would take 0.1% of the World’s GDP. The way these statistics are phrased almost make it seem like 0.1% of GDP is a small number when it truly isn’t. If less countries participate, naturally the amount that every country has to contribute increases. The paper mentions how if US does not participate in this program, the amount that other countries would have to pay will hike. The plan heavily relies on the participation of all sovereign states, which is quite bureaucratic and hard because every country has different interests. While there is a moral imperative to solve this injustice, the utility derives from the long run protection from potentially deadly virus like SARS and MERS are not enough of an incentive for taxpayers to want to participate in this project. There is a higher opportunity cost for a country to wealthier countries merely due to the fact that they will be proportionally charged more for the cause. Pogges might argue that the leaders representing the citizens will act upon the greater good. But as mentioned in a previous section of the paper, the respective leaders of the countries are different. Additionally, some might be more corrupt than others, and some countries —especially undeveloped nations— have high tax evasion rates. Hence there has to be short term utility that affluent countries can derive because a sense of moral good is not a sustainable argument.
While I was reading this paper, I was also wondering when this plan would be implemented. I think it is more fitting to implement the plan after there is a certain level of development in all countries in order maximize the impact of the plan. For instance, the United Nation’s Millennium Goals exist in order to reduce the amount of poverty by using indicators with quantifiable metrics. I think that it would make more sense to develop nations first economically and give them the infrastructure to implement a plan like this. Because the plan is construed under the assumption that the positive effect is going to be the same, even though the same action might have a different reaction in every nation. In order to make this paper stronger, the timing of the project should be explained because the paper criminalizes the current system and makes it seem like implementing this plan will solve all problems when it has its limitations.
Cristina, would Pogge be comfortable with the idea that we should wait until we reach a certain level of development, or is his view that this is a vital step in achieving such a level of development?
ReplyDeleteI really like your focus on the question of incentives, because a big part of his case is that HIS plan aligns incentives, hence is feasible and realistic. You are questioning whether this is true.