Today you'll find our article on communication in pandemic times in Blog Economía y Salud AES, how markets of attention and radical uncertainty drive current situation.
David Hockney
Modern public health has not paid much attention to ethics until very recently. Perhaps because a large part of their functions have been developed in public administrations, which are subject to regulations and laws and not to the deontological standards of professional corporations, but also because having such a lovely formal purpose -- health promotion and protection-- it seems that it is not necessary to go to ethics to assess their activities. As it happened in the time of Enlightened Absolutism. An arrogant attitude that could explain popular distrust of some of their recommendations. One obstacle that the application of ethics could overcome.
On 10 May 2020, the health economics community lost one of its giants with the death of Adam Wagstaff. During his career, Adam made tremendous contributions to the development and analysis of health care financing policies, with a focus on both health equity and efficiency in countries around the world. The huge volume of his work is partially reflected through articles and citations to his work published in Health Economics. The Health Economics Editorial Board, in conjunction with Wiley, prepared this Virtual Issue in Adam's honor. The issue starts with remembrances of Adam by Eddy van Doorslaer, a long-time friend and colleague. The issue also contains, in chronological order, links to the 28 Health Economics articles which Adam wrote or co-authored. We hope this compilation increases awareness of the brilliance of a leading health economist whose contributions were cut short by most unfortunate illness.
Western Capitalism is in crisis, with falling productivity, investment and living standards, widening inequality, financial instability and the growing threat of climate change. This undergraduate module provides students with a critical perspective on these ‘grand-challenges’ and introduces them to new approaches to economics and policy which challenge standard thinking.
The module draws on the book “Rethinking Capitalism”, edited by Mariana Mazzucato (Director of IIPP) and Michael Jacobs (Visiting fellow in the UCL School of Public Policy). It features guest academic lectures from some of the chapter authors which can be viewed below. These academic lectures are combined with presentations by policy makers working at the frontline of the issues under discussion
The global business world will eventually divide into two camps—those who adopt their own version of Bezonomics, and those who don’t. Alphabet, Facebook, Netflix, Alibaba, JD.com, and Tencent have built huge, powerful businesses based on their ability to collect and analyze data, and keep applying those learnings to make their businesses smarter and their offerings to customers more attractive. In their pursuit of AI-driven technologies such as voice and facial recognition, the Internet of Things, and robotics, they’re creating automated business models that will crush traditional businesses that fail to adapt to this new world. And the emergence of 5G technology, which will replace our current digital networks, will only widen the gap. Experts predict that this next generation of Internet connectivity will be as much as a hundred times faster than today’s web.A must read. In my opinion, what really brings Bezonomics to healthcare is the largest expression of commercialism. In other words, healthcare built around excedent appropriation, not around the patient. If this is so (and Atul Gawande departure is a signal) then we all have to stand up against this model and create value and platforms based on professionalism.
The impact that Bezonomics is having on society is just as profound. Some of the big tech companies are sowing discord with fake news, interfering with elections, and violating personal privacy. As Apple CEO Tim Cook put it: “If you’ve built a chaos factory, you can’t dodge responsibility for the chaos.” The global wealth gap has become so out of kilter that politicians in America and Europe have singled out Amazon and other big tech companies for blame. These wealth-creation machines have become so efficient at creating riches for their top employees and shareholders that they’re likely to engender more public outrage and become easy targets for regulators—perhaps in some cases even be broken up.
The potential scope and scale of the (direct and indirect) impact of biological innovations appear very substantial. As much as 60 percent of the physical inputs to the global economy could be produced biologically. Around one-third of these inputs are biological materials (such as wood). The remaining two-thirds are not biological materials, but could, in principle, be produced using innovative biological processes (for instance, bioplastics).
A pipeline of about 400 use cases, almost all scientifically feasible today, is already visible. These applications alone could have direct economic impact of up to $4 trillion a year over the next ten to 20 years. More than half of this direct impact could be outside human health in domains such as agriculture and food, consumer products and services, and materials and energy production. Taking into account potential knock-on effects, new applications yet to emerge, and additional scientific breakthroughs, the full potential could be far larger.A must read.