Documents
User Generated
Resources
Learning Center

# Slide 1 - Stonehill College

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 56

• pg 1
```									                        Stonehill College

The Other Side
of Globalization
Thomas Pogge

Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs, Yale University
the ANU Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE)
and the University of Oslo Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature (CSMN)
0
You’re welcome
to have a copy
of this PPT
1
The Official Story
and our Response
The Official Tracking of Poverty
The first Millennium Development Goal (MDG-1) tracked
by the United Nations (UN) envisions that the percentage
of the population of the less developed countries (‘LDCs’)
living below the International Poverty Line (IPL) should
in 2015 be no more than half of what it was in 1990.
Maintained by the World Bank, the IPL defines as poor
those whose income or local cost of consumption falls
below USD 1.25 (2005 PPP) per person per day.
PPP = purchasing power parities (not FOREX or currency
exchange rates) in the year 2005. “International dollars.”
USD 1 = INR 15.60 (vs. INR 44.00 FOREX)
In each country, the consumer price index (CPI) is used
to calculate the equivalent to the IPL for years other
than 2005. For example, the IPL is equivalent to USD
1.40 in the US today (2010).                            3
The Grand Promise to Halve
Poverty by 2015: Three Versions
1996 World Food Summit in Rome: number
of extremely poor is to be halved during 1996-
2015. This implies an annual reduction by 3.58%.
(www.fao.org/wfs)

2000 Millennium Declaration: the proportion
of extremely poor among the world’s people is
to be halved 2000-2015. This implies annual
decline by 3.35% (40% in 15 yrs).
The First Millennium Development Goal
(MDG-1) as subsequently formulated by the UN:
the proportion of extremely poor among the
population of the developing countries is to
be halved 1990-2015. This implies an annual
reduction by 1.25% (27% over 25 years).
MDG-1: A Promise Diluted
Baseline     Promised            Required
Number      Reduction  Target     annual
Baseline  of Poor     in number for 2015    rate of
Year    (millions)     by 2015 (millions) reduction

World
50% in
Food         1996       1656
19 yrs      828      3.58%
Summit

40% in
Millennium
Declaration   2000       1665
15 yrs      999      3.35%

MDG-1
27% in
as now        1990       1813
25 yrs    1324       1.25%
tracked
MDG-1: World Poverty
YEAR                  Poverty Rate in LDCs
1981                         51.8%
1984                         46.6%
1987                         41.8%
1990                         41.6%
1993                         39.1%
1996                         34.4%
1999                         33.7%
2002                         30.6%
2005                         25.2%
2015 target                  20.8%
Good news, we are well ahead of schedule toward achieving MDG-1!!
econ.worldbank.org/docsearch; Paper 4703, p. 42
Reality Check
While the Bank reports a stream of good news
from the poverty front, the FAO has recently
reported that the number of chronically
undernourished people (Target 2 of MDG-1) is
above 1 billion for the first time ever. In the
1990s and until 2006 this number was reported
to be around 800 million. One important cause:
food prices doubled 2006-08 (partly because of
rapidly rising biofuel demand).
www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/20568/icode/ …
Six Main Problems with IPL Headcount
1. Priority for those just below the IPL

2. Distortion through use of general-consumption PPPs

8
PPPs Don’t Reflect the Cost
of Meeting Basic Needs
The much narrower and more poverty-relevant
PPPs for “food and nonalcoholic beverages” are
considerably higher ― in each and every one of
88 listed poor countries ― than the broader
PPPs used in the Bank’s conversion. They are,
on average, 51.6 percent higher. Thus, at the
Bank’s converted IPL, poor people on average
with USD 0.83 in the US in 2005.
siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/icp-final.pdf, pp. 28-37
9
COUNTRY               2005 PPPihhc    2005 PPPfnb     Ratio
Angola                    70.50          126.79   1.798
Argentina                    1.35            1.70   1.259
Armenia                   196.19          277.66   1.415
Benin                    275.90          495.42   1.796
Bhutan                     18.46           25.39   1.375
Bolivia                    2.57            3.61   1.405
Botswana                     3.38            5.43   1.607
Brazil                    1.57            1.69   1.076
Brunei Darussalam                 1.08            1.50   1.389
Burkina Faso                 242.42          388.15   1.601
Burundi                   447.04          803.65   1.798
Cambodia                  1615.30         2304.16   1.426
Cameroon                    294.50          471.30   1.600
Cape Verde                   78.17           97.06   1.242
Central African Republic          307.47          566.14   1.841
10
COUNTRY           2005 PPPihhc    2005 PPPfnb     Ratio
Colombia              1191.74         1738.54   1.459
Comoros                294.41          470.80   1.599
Congo, Dem. Rep.           316.23          542.69   1.716
Congo, Rep.             375.57          632.74   1.685
Cote d'Ivoire           325.81          528.52   1.622
Djibouti              107.81          185.37   1.719
Egypt, Arab Rep.            2.02            3.00   1.485
Equatorial Guinea          436.29          736.79   1.689
Ethiopia                2.75            4.13   1.502
Fiji                 1.55            1.78   1.148
Gabon                443.75          751.51   1.694
Gambia, The              10.34           23.21   2.245
Georgia                 0.78            1.04   1.333
Ghana               4475.82         8920.97   1.993
Guinea               1479.57         2947.16   1.992
Guinea-Bissau            284.28          461.33   1.623
11
COUNTRY            2005 PPPihhc    2005 PPPfnb     Ratio
India                 15.60           21.13   1.354
Indonesia              4192.83         5817.59   1.388
Iran, Islamic Rep.         2714.82         5664.83   2.087
Iraq                639.87          820.45   1.282
Kazakhstan                64.96           71.24   1.097
Kenya                 32.68           54.14   1.657
Kyrgyz Republic             13.00           18.69   1.438
Lao PDR               3741.62         5999.52   1.603
Lebanon               1107.12         1149.93   1.039
Lesotho                  3.43            5.66   1.650
Liberia                 0.51            0.89   1.745
Malawi                 56.92          100.86   1.772
Malaysia                 2.11            2.76   1.308
Maldives                 9.74           11.30   1.160
Mali                289.68          482.74   1.666
Mauritania               125.67          223.16   1.776
12
Mexico                  7.65            8.16   1.067
COUNTRY             2005 PPPihhc    2005 PPPfnb     Ratio
Moldova                   4.83            6.35   1.315
Mongolia                522.49          697.10   1.334
Montenegro                  0.50            0.66   1.320
Morocco                   5.51            7.82   1.419
Mozambique              11625.69        18411.54   1.584
Namibia                   5.06            7.03   1.389
Nepal                  26.47           34.09   1.288
Niger                 267.33          460.78   1.724
Nigeria                 78.58          159.02   2.024
Pakistan                 20.71           33.45   1.615
Paraguay               2127.80         2621.79   1.232
Peru                   1.65            2.28   1.382
Philippines               24.18           33.60   1.390
Rwanda                  236.75          333.21   1.407
Sao Tome and Principe         6363.13        10467.10   1.645
Senegal                298.24          522.49   1.752
Serbia                 34.31           48.03   1.400
13
COUNTRY                 2005 PPPihhc    2005 PPPfnb     Ratio
South Africa                     4.57            5.53   1.210
Sri Lanka                     40.04           59.95   1.497
Sudan                      123.51          209.25   1.694
Swaziland                       3.73            5.64   1.512
Syrian Arab Republic                24.65           28.17   1.143
Tajikistan                     0.93            1.39   1.495
Tanzania                     482.45          793.51   1.645
Togo                      282.26          506.06   1.793
Tunisia                       0.70            1.01   1.443
Turkey                        1.00            1.29   1.290
Uganda                      744.62         1040.09   1.397
Venezuela, RB                  1251.12         1833.68   1.466
Vietnam                     5919.89         8352.05   1.411
Yemen, Rep.                     91.06          114.72   1.260
Zambia                     2830.33         3930.78   1.389
Zimbabwe                    47952.42        70339.25   1.467
Average Ratio (geometric mean)                                   1.496   14
Why the Consistent Divergence
… of food PPPs from the more general PPPs for
individual household consumption expenditure?

Price differentials across countries (at FOREX)
across national borders) commodities are. So
it is the non-tradable commodities, such as
services, that drive PPPs away from FOREX.
Foodstuffs are at the tradables end of the
spectrum, where international price
differentials tend closely to reflect FOREX.
15
A Hypothetical Example
Price
Poor Country           United States
Ratio

Commodities                                         Share of
Share of                            Computed:
Price                  Price      National
National
in
Consumption
in      Consumption   1 Peso
Pesos
Spending
Dollars     Spending    = \$1.55

Necessities       5       30%            3        10%           0.60

Discretionaries    6       50%            4        50%           0.67

Services        1       20%            9        40%           9.0016
Is \$1.25 (2005 PPP) a day enough?
In 2005, the USDA quantified the cost of
living on its Thrifty Food Plan, “a nutritionally
adequate diet for short-term or emergency
use,” at between \$3.59 and \$4.97 per person
per day (depending on household size and
children’s ages). This includes no money at
all for minimal requirements of clothing,
shelter, medical care, water and other
utilities.
17
www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodCost-Home.htm
Six Main Problems with IPL Headcount
1. Priority for those just below the IPL

2. Distortion through use of general-consumption PPPs

3. Excessive sensitivity of trend to IPL level

18
How IPL Level Affects the Trend
Relative
1981- 1984- 1987- 1990-          to path of   1993- 1996- 1999-
IPL at                     2005
2005 2005 2005 (-17.2%)           diluted     2005 2005 2005
2005                                        MDG-1
PPPs

40%
\$1.25    -27%   -24% -20% -24%                         -23% -17% -19%

59%
\$2.00    +1%     -2%      -3%     -7%                   -9%     -9%     -11%
behind

103%
\$2.50    +13%    +8%     +5%     +.45%                  -3%     -5%      -7%
behind

http://econ.worldbank.org/docsearch, working paper 4703, Table 7, pp. 44-45
“Updating” the World Bank’s
International Poverty Line
The Bank initially fixed its IPL at 1.02 1985-dollars
per day, noting that eight poor countries’ 1985
domestic poverty lines were close to this amount.
Soon rounded down to 1.00 1985-dollar per day.
In 2000 the Bank reset its IPL to 1.08 1993-dollars
per day, noting that this was the median of the ten
lowest domestic poverty lines in 1993.
In 2008 the Bank reset its IPL to 1.25 2005-dollars
per day, noting that this was the mean of the fifteen
poorest countries’ domestic poverty lines.
Many of the domestic poverty lines used to “anchor”
all these IPLs are themselves fixed by the Bank.
“Updating” the World Bank’s
International Poverty Line
Used from 1990 until 1999:
1.02 1985-dollar per day, today \$2.07 in US
1.00 1985-dollar per day, today \$2.03 in US

Used from 2000 until 2008:
1.08 1993-dollar per day, today \$1.62 in US

Used since August 2008:
1.25 2005-dollar per day, today \$1.40 in US
or \$9.80 per week or \$510 annually
www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.

India INR 19.50/day; 593/mth; 7120/yr (2005)
21
Would Faster Progress or a Higher
IPL be Hopelessly Unrealistic?
Using its latest IPL (\$1.25 per day or \$38 per month,
in 2005 int’l dollars), the World Bank counted 1.38 billion
poor people living 30% below this line on average. Total
deficit: 0.17% of world income (0.33% at PPP).
With a less inadequate poverty line of \$2 per day or \$61
per month (2005 int’l dollars), the Bank counted 2.56
billion poor people living 40% below this line on average.
Total deficit: 0.66% of world income (1.28% at PPP).
With a more HR-realistic poverty line of \$2.50 per day
or \$76 per month (2005 int’l dollars), the Bank counted
3.08 billion poor living 45% below this line on average.
Total deficit: 1.13% of world income (2.2% at PPP).
22
econ.worldbank.org/docsearch; Paper 4703, pp. 23, 34-5
IPL Level and Global Poverty Gap
IPL in     Poor People in 2005       Aggregate Shortfall from the IPL
2005 int’l
dollars                   Average      in percent of gross    in \$bn
per        Number       Shortfall       global income         p.a.
person      in billions   from the                 at current (2005)
per day                      IPL      at PPPs
exchange rates

\$1.25         1.38         30%         0.33% 0.17%             76

\$2.00         2.56         40%         1.28% 0.66%            296

\$2.50         3.08         45%         2.2% 1.13%             507
23
Six Main Problems with IPL Headcount
1. Priority for those just below the IPL

2. Distortion through use of general-consumption
PPPs

3. Excessive sensitivity of trend to IPL level

4. Disregard for other dimensions of poverty:
leisure/labor, climate…

5. Disregard (through household surveys) of intra-
household distribution and varying course-of-life
needs

6. Inconsistency in methodology as revealed by         24
Comparisons are Base-Year Dependent

Country A AV   [A’s CPI V-W]    AW       [A’s CPI W-X]   AX   [A’s CPI X-Y]     AY
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
[PPP of| Year W]                             [PPP of | Year Y]
|                                             |
|                                             |
|                                             |
Country B BV   [B’s CPI V-W]     BW      [B’s CPI W-X]   BX   [B’s CPI X-Y]      BY

Base Year W                                    Base Year Y

25
2

Inequality
SURPRISE QUIZ ON
GLOBAL INEQUALITY
Share of Global
Segment of World Population   Household Income 2005
Richest Ventile

Next Four Ventiles

Second Quarter

Third Quarter

Poorest Quarter
Global Inequality
At current exchange rates, the poorest half of
world population: 3,400 million, have under 3%
of global household income―as against 2% had
by the most affluent 30,000 (0.01%) in the US.
The per capita income ratio between the top 5%
and the bottom 40% is 200:1.
Spreadsheets from Branko Milanovic, World Bank
Saez “Tables and Figures Updated”, elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/

At current exchange rates, the poorest half of
the human population, some 3,400 million, have
ca. 1% of global wealth ― as against 3% had by
the world’s 1125 billionaires (2008!). (9m:1)
www.iariw.org/papers/2006/davies.pdf, table 10A, p. 47
www.forbes.com/2008/03/05/richest-billionaires-people-billionaires08-cx_lk_0305intro.html
Share of  Share of
Absolute
Global    Global                 Relative
Change in
Segment of   Household Household               Change in
Income
World       Income    Income               Income Share
Share
Population      1988      2005
Richest
Ventile     42.87      46.36      +3.49 +8.1%
Next Four
Ventiles    46.63      43.98       -2.65      -5.7%
Second
Quarter       6.97       6.74       -0.23      -3.3%
Third
Quarter       2.37       2.14       -0.23      -9.8%
Poorest
Quarter       1.15       0.77       -0.38 -32.9%
What is Happening Globally?

Growth in international inequality has stalled as
fast growth in China and India balances slow/no
growth in the poorest (“bottom billion”) countries.
Since mid-1990s no longer a significant driver of
global inequality

Best source: Branko Milanovic, World Bank
e.g. Worlds Apart, Princeton UP 2005

30
Rising Inequality in the US

In the last US economic expansion (2002-07),
average per capita household income grew
16%.

In the top one percent this growth was 62%,
in the remainder of the population 6.7%.

The top percentile captured 65% of the real
per capita growth of the US economy (45% in
the 1993-2000 Clinton expansion).
Saez “Updated”, elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/, Table 1, from IRS Data
31
Rising Inequality in the US
(1978-2007)
The income share of the bottom half declined from
26.4% to 12.8%. Meanwhile, that of the top one
percent rose from 8.95% to 23.50% (2.6-fold);
that of the top tenth percent from 2.65% to 12.28%
(4.6- fold); and that of the top hundredth percent
from 0.86% to 6.04% (7-fold; Saez Table A3). The top
hundredth percent (30,000 people) now have nearly
half as much income as the bottom half (150 million)
of Americans – and about two-thirds as much as the
bottom half (3400 million) of world population.
32
finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107575/rise-of-the-super-rich-hits-a-sobering-wall.html
Kuznets curve is the graphical representation of Simon Kuznets's theory ('Kuznets
hypothesis') that economic inequality increases over time while a country is
developing, then after a critical average income is attained, begins to decrease.
One theory as to why this happens states that in early stages of development,
when investment in physical capital is the main mechanism of economic growth,
inequality encourages growth by allocating resources towards those who save and
invest the most. Whereas in mature economies human capital accrual, or an
estimate of cost that has been incurred but not yet paid, takes the place of physical
capital accrual as the main source of growth, and inequality slows growth by
lowering education standards because poor people lack finance for their education
in imperfect credit markets. Kuznets curve diagrams show an inverted U curve,
although variables along the axes are often mixed and matched, with inequality or
the Gini coefficent on the Y axis and economic development, time or per capita
incomes on the X axis.    Wikipedia                                                33
What’s Happening in China?

In China, 1990-2004, the income
share of the bottom half declined
from 27% to 18% ― while that
of the top tenth rose from 25%
to 35%.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=799844
Note new inequality figures at WB: World Development Indicators
34
3
Globalization
as Part of the
Explanation
Three Claims
• Today, most premature human deaths
and other deprivations are causally
traceable (“but for”) injustice in existing
supranational institutional arrangements

• for which the more powerful countries
and their citizens are responsible

• in violation of human-rights-correlative
negative duties of justice.
36
Counter-Argument

Poverty is evolving differently in the
various developing countries and regions.
This shows that local (e.g., national)
factors account for the persistence of
severe poverty where it persist.

37
the Counter-Argument
It merely shows that local factors are
co-responsible for the persistence of
severe poverty. It does not show that
local factors are solely responsible.
Example: Differential learning success
of students/pupils in the same class.

38
Global           National Institutional
Schemes of the Various
Institutional Order   Less Developed Countries

.
Poor and Vulnerable
Citizens in the Less
Developed Countries

39
Specific Examples of Poverty-Aggravating
Global Institutional Arrangements
Global institutional order works against HR fulfillment
directly: rules of trade and finance (with asymmetrical
protectionism); permissive environmental rules
(fostering greenhouse gases and resource depletion).
… works against HR fulfillment indirectly, by incentivizing
and sustaining HR-violating regimes and policies in poor
countries: international resource, borrowing, treaty, arms
privileges; intellectual property rights in seeds and
medicines; “race to the bottom” in labor standards.
The facilitation of illicit financial flows exemplifies both:
draining poor countries of revenues through tax evasion
and embezzlement (US\$850-1000 billion annually) and
fostering corruption and oppression in those countries.
www.ffdngo.org/documentrepository/GFI%20Report.pdf
Global Institutional Order
4 Privileges
Pharmaceuticals
Labor Standards
Dirty Money

National Institutional
Governments of the   Protectionism
Pollution Rules     Schemes of the
More Powerful
Various Less
Countries
Developed Countries

Corporations and
Poor and Vulnerable
Citizens of the
Citizens in the Less
More Powerful
Developed Countries
Countries
41
Systemic Problem: Regulatory
Capture with Inequality Spiral
Often in concert, the richest players influence the rules
and their application, thereby expanding their own
advantage. Such run-away inequality strengthens, in
each round, both the incentives and the opportunities
for influence. Public facilities come under the influence
of players with special and often near-term interests,
purpose (venality esp. of economists who live up to
their homo oeconomicus paradigm). Special interests
have been especially effective in influencing
international agreements (WTO Treaty) and
organizations (WIPO, World Bank).                       42
The Human Right Least Realized
“Everyone has the right to a standard
of living adequate for the health and well-
being of himself and of his family, including
food, clothing, housing and medical care
and necessary social services, and the right
to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control.”
Article 25(1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
43
The Effects of World Poverty
Among ca. 6800 million human beings, about
1020 million are chronically undernourished (FAO 2009),
884 million lack safe drinking water (WHO/UNICEF 2008, 32),
924 million lack adequate shelter (UN Habitat 2003, p. vi),
1600 million have no electricity (UN Habitat, “Urban Energy”),
2500 million lack adequate sanitation (WHO/UNICEF 2008, p. 7),
774 million adults are illiterate (www.uis.unesco.org),
218 million children (aged 5 to 17) do wage work outside their
household — often under slavery-like and hazardous conditions:
as soldiers, prostitutes or domestic servants, or in agriculture,
construction, textile or carpet production (ILO: The End of Child
Labour, Within Reach, 2006, pp. 9, 11, 17-18).                    44
At Least a Third of Human Deaths
— some 18 (out of 57) million per year or 50,000
daily — are due to poverty-related causes, cheaply
preventable through safe drinking water, better
sanitation, more adequate nutrition, rehydration packs,
vaccines or other medicines. In thousands:
diarrhea (2163) and malnutrition (487),
perinatal (3180) and maternal conditions (527),
childhood diseases (847 — half measles),
tuberculosis (1464), meningitis (340), hepatitis (159),
malaria (889) and other tropical diseases (152),
respiratory infections (4259 — mainly pneumonia),
HIV/AIDS (2040), sexually transmitted diseases (128)
WHO: World Health Organization, Global Burden of Disease:
2004 Update, Geneva 2008, Table A1, pp. 54-59 45.
Millions of Deaths
Worldwide Poverty
Deaths 1990-2009                                                   >300
World War Two
1939-45                          60
Mao's Great Leap
Forward 1959-62                30
Stalin's Repression
1924-53                  20
World War One
1914-18                 17
Russian Civil War
1917-22                9
Congo Free State
1886-1908              7.5
Korea and Vietnam
1951-54, 1965-74          5.5

0         50        100   150   200   250   300
46
International Law
Divided against Itself
Since World War II, governments have created a
well-publicized and highly visible but largely ineffective
body of international law that recognizes, codifies and
celebrates human rights. Governments often appeal to
these documents to raise the image of themselves and
their friends or to tarnish the image of their rivals.

Over the same period, governments have created a
vast and effective system of supranational legal rules
and regimes — barely understood and under little
democratic oversight — that are formulated and
administered without concern for human rights and
in fact massively violate human rights.                  47
Human Rights as
Moral Claims on (Global)
Institutional Arrangements
“Everyone is entitled to a social
and international order in which
the rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration can be fully
realized.”
Article 28, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948   48
4
Reform
Poverty and Overpopulation
In the last fifty-five years, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR)
has dropped from 5.42 to 1.72 in Eastern Asia, for
instance, and from 3.04 to 1.38 in Portugal and from
3.18 to 1.83 in Australia. In economically stagnant poor
countries, by contrast, there has been little change over
the same period: Equatorial Guinea went from 5.50 to
5.36, Mali from 6.23 to 5.49, Niger from 6.86 to 7.15,
and Sierra Leone from 5.52 to 5.22 (United Nations
2008). The correlation is further confirmed by synchronic
comparisons. Currently, the total fertility rate is 4.39 for
the 50 least developed countries versus 1.64 for the
more developed regions, and 2.46 for the remaining
countries (ibid.).        Best sources: http://esa.un.org/unpp
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
50
The Aim of Political Efforts Should
― constitute an enduring structural reform;
― effectively symbolize the idea that all human
lives are of equal value, genuine moralization;
― benefit a strong, well-organized faction of the
global elite (new profit opportunities, image
improvement, reduced volatility);
― be scalable and can be increased and/or
― strengthen those with an objective interest
in reform: empowerment of the global poor;
― be an exemplar of realistic moral leadership,
replicable creation of a global public good.      51
Rules Governing the Development
and Distribution of New Medicines

Under the TRIPS agreement – part of the WTO
Treaty and a paradigm example of regulatory
capture – the intellectual property regime of the
affluent countries was globalized by being made
a mandatory condition of WTO membership.
Pharmaceutical innovators must be granted 20-
year product patents in all WTO member states.
The Health Impact Fund (HIF)
• is financed by willing governments at minimally
\$6 billion per annum (0.01% of GNI, if universal).
• The HIF promises to reward (upon registration)
any new medicine annually for ten years on the
basis of its global health impact.
• Registering a new medicine with the HIF is
voluntary for the innovator, who need not give
up any intellectual property rights.
• Registrant must agree to make the new medicine
available wherever it is needed at the lowest
feasible cost of manufacture and distribution and
to grant zero-priced licenses after reward period.
• www.HealthImpactFund.org                         53
Financing
• \$6 billion a year is about 0.01% of global
income, not even 1% of current worldwide
expenditures on pharmaceuticals.
• Full incentive effects on potential innovators
require long-term commitment by funders.
• Only governments (of affluent and developing
countries) can plausibly commit large sums
long-term. We propose a small share of GNI,
perhaps 0.03%, for each partner country.
• All or most of this comes back to taxpayers
through lower prices for medicines, insurance,
national health systems, and foreign aid.
54