When it comes to monopolies, Pogge argues that the problem is
"the monopoly pricing power [corporations] employ, even in the case of
essential medicines, to incentivize pharmaceutical research." (31).
Moreover, corporations find themselves in the moral quandary that "To
engage in sustainable research and development of essential medicines, they
must actively prevent poor people from gaining access to such medicines near
marginal cost." (31). As the paper is written, however, it makes it seem
as though there is a binary choice between changing the incentive structure and
letting poor people die from preventable diseases. There seems to be other
options, though. For instance, states could subsidize the first $X amount
of sales in poor countries, allowing the company its profit while ensuring that
poor people have access to the medicine.
More importantly perhaps, Pogge’s solution seems to replace one
monopoly with a different one. If the central defect of the current system is
the “monopoly pricing power they employ,” then how does replacing one monopoly
for another actually improve everything. Perhaps the poor will have more access
to medicine, but, if states (the other monopoly) opt to spend a low amount of
money on drugs, pharmaceutical companies could easily begin to run into
financial trouble. Any thoughts on the best way to deal with one of the two
monopolies that seem necessary to exist?
I feel like Pogge wouldn't consider these "monopolies" to be on level moral ground. His argument seems to instead claim that the human rights of citizens are violated (or at least not respected) when intellectual property laws are so strict that they restrict and deny those in poverty access to life-saving medicine. Even if we're talking about the legitimate and just rule of the state, Pogge not only seems to channel some inner-Sen from 11-13 when he speaks of the limitations poor countries face in exercising their autonomy, but believe that even if the state or ruler "has some moral standing," this consent to spend, in your case, a low amount on drugs, "still cannot waive supposedly inalienable human rights of his subjects" (13).
ReplyDeleteHow does your first proposal avoid the kids of worries that he takes to doom differential pricing approaches and problems with the alignment of incentives?
ReplyDeleteOn the second point, and following Cole, a state does possess a monopoly on the use of force, but of course that is why we think that it needs to be accountable to the people to be legitimate. Moreover, such a state monopoly is presupposed by markets and market monopolies. There are no markets without property rights, and no property rights without states. Hmmmm...