Nicole Hassoun

Free Trade, Poverty, and Inequality

Anyone familiar with The Economist knows the mantra: Free trade will ameliorate poverty by increasing growth and reducing inequality. This paper suggests that problems underlying measurement of poverty, inequality, and free trade provide reason to worry about this argument. Furthermore, the paper suggests that better evidence is necessary to establish that free trade is causing inequality and poverty to fall. Experimental studies usually provide the best evidence of causation. So, the paper concludes with a call for further research into the prospects for ethically acceptable experimental testing of free trades impact on poverty and inequality. Although the paper is unabashedly methodological, its conclusions bear on many ethical debates. Ethicists sometimes argue, for instance, that there is reason to encourage free trade because they believe free trade is decreasing poverty and inequality. Clarifying the empirical facts may not settle ethical debates but it may inform them.

Global Health Impact: A Basis for Labeling and Licensing Campaigns?

Most of the worlds health problems afflict poor countries and their poorest inhabitants. There are many reasons why so many people die of poverty-related causes. One reason is that the poor cannot access many of the existing drugs and technologies they need. Another, is that little of the research and development (R&D) done on new drugs and technologies benefits the poor. There are several proposals on the table that might incentivize pharmaceutical companies to extend access to essential drugs and technologies to the global poor.(1) Still, the problem remains - the poor are suffering and dying from lack of access to essential medicines. So, it is worth considering a new alternative. This paper suggests rating pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies based on how some of their policies impact poor peoples health. It argues that it might be possible to leverage a rating system to encourage companies to extend access to essential drugs and technologies to the poor.

Making Free Trade Fair

Philosophers have done very little work on what makes trade fair. Perhaps the most extensive discussion is Malgorzata Kurjanska and Mathias Risse’s article, “Fairness in Trade II: export subsidies and the fair trade movement.”2 In their article, Kurjanska and Risse consider the case for trade subsidies and the Fair Trade movement. They suggest that it is not permissible for developed countries to give their producers subsidies because doing so does not strike an appropriate balance between meeting the needs of the global poor and protecting domestic workers (Kurjanska and Risse, 2008: 34). Kurjanska and Risse also argue that the case for Fair Trade hinges, primarily, on whether or not it is part of the best development strategy for poor countries. They do not think Fair Trade is part of the best development strategy and, so, they believe purchasing Fair Trade certified goods is only acceptable because doing so does not constitute a large share of the market in traded goods. This chapter argues that the case against subsidies and Fair Trade Kurjanska and Risse present is much weaker than they make out. To the contrary, it argues that giving some subsidies and purchasing some Fair Trade certified goods may even be necessary to make trade fair. Section 11.2 starts by saying a few words about the normative framework Kurjanska and Risse adopt.

The Global Health Impact Index: Promoting Global Health

Millions of people cannot access essential medicines they need for deadly diseases like malaria, tuberculosis (TB) and HIV/AIDS. There is good information on the need for drugs for these diseases but until now, no global estimate of the impact drugs are having on this burden. This paper presents a model measuring companies’ key malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS drugs’ consequences for global health (global-health-impact.org). It aggregates drugs’ impacts in several ways–by disease, country and originator-company. The methodology can be extended across diseases as well as drugs to provide a more extensive picture of the impact companies’ drugs are having on the global burden of disease. The study suggests that key malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS drugs are, together, ameliorating about 37% of the global burden of these diseases and Sanofi, Novartis, and Pfizer’s drugs are having the largest effect on this burden. Moreover, drug impacts vary widely across countries. This index provides important information for policy makers, pharmaceutical companies, countries, and other stake-holders that can help increase access to essential medicines.

The Extending Access Index: Promoting Global Health

Many people around the world cannot access essential medicines for diseases like malaria, tuberculosis (TB) and HIV/AIDS. One way of addressing this problem is a Global Health Impact certification system where pharmaceutical companies are rated on the basis of their drugs’ impact on global health. The best companies, in a given year, will then be allowed to use a Global Health Impact label on all of their products – everything from lip balm to food supplements. Highly rated companies will have an incentive to use the label to garner a larger share of the market. If even a small percentage of consumers promote global health by purchasing Global Health Impact products, the incentive to use this label will be substantial. An associated Global Health Impact licensing campaign will also have a big impact. Pharmaceutical companies rely, to a large extent, on university research and development. So, if universities only allow companies that agree to use Global Health Impact practices to benefit from their technology, companies will have an incentive to abide by Global Health Impact standards. The Global Health Impact certification system gives companies a reason to produce medicines that will save millions of lives (like a new malaria or HIV vaccine). This paper presents a model rating system that can provide the basis for Global Health Impact certification. It explores some of the methodological choices underlying the construction of this index and explains how the model can be improved with further research.

The anthropocentric advantage? Environmental ethics and climate change policy

Environmental ethicists often criticize liberalism. For many liberals embrace anthropocentric theories on which only humans have non‐instrumental value. Environmental ethicists argue that such liberals fail to account for many things that matter or provide an ethic sufficient for addressing climate change. These critics suggest that many parts of nature – e.g. non‐human individuals, other species, ecosystems and the biosphere ‐ often these critics also hold that concern for some parts of nature does not always trump concern for others. This article suggests, however, that such inclusive environmental ethicists have a different problem. For when there are many things of value, figuring out what to do can be extremely difficult. Even though climate change is likely to cause problems for many parts of nature, it will probably be good for some other parts. Inclusive environmental ethicists need a theory taking all of the things they care about into account. Otherwise they cannot provide definitive reason even to address climate change. Without this theory, anthropocentric liberals might argue that we should not accept an inclusive environmental ethic. Although there may be something wrong with this line of thought, it at least raises a puzzle for those inclined to accept these ethics.

The Duty to Disclose (Even More) Adverse Clinical Trial Results

In their target article, Liao and colleagues (2009) argue that there is a duty to disclose adverse clinical trial results to potential participants. They believe that disclosure is necessary to protect potential participants’ human right not to be placed under risk of harm without informed consent. This commentary suggests that, in some respects, Liao and colleagues’ argument admits too much and in others, it admits too little. Their argument admits too much because there cannot be a human right not to be placed any risk of harm without informed consent. Their argument does not admit enough because it provides reason to think companies normally have an obligation to disclose adverse clinical trial results to the public—not just potential participants.

Eternally Separated Lovers: The Argument from Love

A message scribbled irreverently on the mediaeval walls of the Nonberg cloister says this: ‘Neither of us can go to heaven unless the other gets in.’ It suggests an argument against the view that those who love people who suffer in hell can be perfectly happy, or even free from all suffering, in heaven. This paper considers the challenge posed by this thought to the coherence of the traditional Christian doctrine on which there are some people in hell who are suffering and others in heaven who are not suffering. More precisely, it defends the following argument: 1. No one who loves another can be perfectly happy or free from suffering if they know that their beloved is suffering. 2. Anyone in hell suffers (at least as long as they are in hell). 3. Anyone in heaven is perfectly happy or at least free from suffering. 4. There can be no one in heaven who is aware of the fact that his or her beloved is in hell. (1, 2, and 3) The paper argues that the first premise is eminently plausible and that those who accept the traditional Christian doctrine should endorse the claim that some of those in heaven love people whom they know to be suffering in hell. So, it concludes that there is reason to reject the traditional Christian doctrine.

AN ASPECT OF VARIABLE POPULATION POVERTY COMPARISONS: DOES ADDING A RICH PERSON TO A POPULATION REDUCE POVERTY?

Poverty indexes are essential for monitoring poverty, setting targets for poverty reduction, and tracking progress on these goals. This paper suggests that further justification is necessary for using the main poverty indexes in the literature in any of these ways. It does so by arguing that poverty should not decline with the mere addition of a rich person to a population and showing that the standard indexes do not satisfy this axiom. It, then, suggests a way of modifying these indexes to avoid this problem.

How people think about distributing aid

Abstract This paper examines how people think about aiding others in a way that can inform both theory and practice. It uses data gathered from Kiva, an online, non-profit organization that allows individuals to aid other individuals around the world, to isolate intuitions that people find broadly compelling. The central result of the paper is that people seem to give more priority to aiding those in greater need, at least below some threshold. That is, the data strongly suggest incorporating both a threshold and a prioritarian principle into the analysis of what principles for aid distribution people accept. This conclusion should be of broad interest to aid practitioners and policy makers. It may also provide important information for political philosophers interested in building, justifying, and criticizing theories about meeting needs using empirical evidence.