{"title":"Why Do Societies Ever Produce Common Goods for Health?","authors":"W. Savedoff","doi":"10.1080/23288604.2019.1655982","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"CONTENTS References The world, and we human beings who live in it, would be better off if we were to invest more resources and attention in producing common goods for health (CGH), such as antipollution and safety regulations, epidemiological surveillance that facilitates rapid response to infectious outbreaks, and taxes levied on harmful products like carbon emissions and tobacco. The logical reasons and the highly favorable benefit-cost ratios that should compel countries to allocate more public resources for such things are laid out clearly in the articles in this special issue of Health Systems & Reform. The papers also explain why logic and evidence are not adequate to convince people and their leaders to dedicate sufficient resources and attention to CGH. As the papers show, before societies will fund CGH, they need to solve a range of collective action problems. The papers argue that societies underinvest in CGH for behavioral reasons, such as underestimating risk and shortterm thinking; as well as economic reasons, such as externalities and free-riding (which create incentives for people to act without regard to the full social costs and benefits of their decisions). With all of these factors conspiring against the production of CGH, it is a wonder that they are produced at all. In this commentary, I argue that we need to be clear-eyed about the history and motivations that led societies to invest in the CGH that we take for granted today. Studying the past may help us identify the political strategies that could create, expand and sustain CGH in the future. So why do societies ever produce CGH? The answer is essentially historical and political, not conceptual and technical. Bump and colleagues address the proximate political factors that explain public investments in CGH. In addition to those insights, I contend that historical analysis demonstrates that broader political factors related to collective identity and power are fundamental, with significant implications for the strategies required to realize investments in CGH. In particular, I argue that investing in CGH requires that:","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2019.1655982","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
CONTENTS References The world, and we human beings who live in it, would be better off if we were to invest more resources and attention in producing common goods for health (CGH), such as antipollution and safety regulations, epidemiological surveillance that facilitates rapid response to infectious outbreaks, and taxes levied on harmful products like carbon emissions and tobacco. The logical reasons and the highly favorable benefit-cost ratios that should compel countries to allocate more public resources for such things are laid out clearly in the articles in this special issue of Health Systems & Reform. The papers also explain why logic and evidence are not adequate to convince people and their leaders to dedicate sufficient resources and attention to CGH. As the papers show, before societies will fund CGH, they need to solve a range of collective action problems. The papers argue that societies underinvest in CGH for behavioral reasons, such as underestimating risk and shortterm thinking; as well as economic reasons, such as externalities and free-riding (which create incentives for people to act without regard to the full social costs and benefits of their decisions). With all of these factors conspiring against the production of CGH, it is a wonder that they are produced at all. In this commentary, I argue that we need to be clear-eyed about the history and motivations that led societies to invest in the CGH that we take for granted today. Studying the past may help us identify the political strategies that could create, expand and sustain CGH in the future. So why do societies ever produce CGH? The answer is essentially historical and political, not conceptual and technical. Bump and colleagues address the proximate political factors that explain public investments in CGH. In addition to those insights, I contend that historical analysis demonstrates that broader political factors related to collective identity and power are fundamental, with significant implications for the strategies required to realize investments in CGH. In particular, I argue that investing in CGH requires that:
如果我们把更多的资源和注意力投入到生产促进健康的共同产品(common goods for health, CGH)上,例如防治污染和安全法规、便于对传染病爆发作出快速反应的流行病学监测以及对碳排放和烟草等有害产品征税,世界以及生活在其中的我们人类就会变得更好。《卫生系统与改革》这期特刊的文章清楚地阐述了合乎逻辑的原因和高度有利的收益成本比,它们应该迫使各国为这些事情分配更多的公共资源。论文还解释了为什么逻辑和证据不足以说服人们及其领导人投入足够的资源和关注CGH。正如论文所显示的那样,在社会为CGH提供资金之前,他们需要解决一系列集体行动问题。这些论文认为,社会对CGH投资不足是由于行为原因,如低估风险和短视思维;以及经济上的原因,比如外部性和搭便车(这会激励人们不考虑其决定的全部社会成本和利益而采取行动)。所有这些因素都不利于CGH的产生,它们的产生是一个奇迹。在这篇评论中,我认为我们需要清楚地了解导致社会投资于我们今天认为理所当然的CGH的历史和动机。研究过去可以帮助我们确定能够在未来创造、扩大和维持CGH的政治战略。那么,为什么社会会产生CGH呢?答案基本上是历史和政治上的,而不是概念和技术上的。Bump和他的同事探讨了解释公共投资于CGH的直接政治因素。除了这些见解之外,我认为历史分析表明,与集体身份和权力相关的更广泛的政治因素是基本的,对实现CGH投资所需的战略具有重大影响。特别是,我认为投资CGH需要:
期刊介绍:
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.