Thank you for raising some interesting concerns JP.
I just wanted to note that the value of a market for bednets may be small relative to the value of philanthropic funding for several reasons:
Having gone down the philanthropy path, ceasing to provide bednets philanthropically now would be unlikely to lead to a flourishing bednet market. See more on this here under “People may not purchase ITNs because they are unavailable in local markets or because they expect to be given them for free”
There are many reasons people may buy fewer bednets in a market than is socially optimal: lack of available funds, present bias, positive externalities (not internalising the societal benefit of reducing malaria transmission).
Business owners can sell other, less crucial goods and services. But in poverty stricken locations, they cannot provide and distribute thousands of life-saving/improving bednets to the poor.
Thanks Lucas. Agree that these may be reasons for 100% coverage to be a reasonable philanthropic target which would be unachievable through commercial means.
Your first point includes the idea that some people may not purchase ITNs because they expect to be given them for free. This reinforces the idea in the essay that there is an extra cost to such distributions as nobody can make a living from selling nets in areas where people think the price should be zero.
Thank you for raising some interesting concerns JP.
I just wanted to note that the value of a market for bednets may be small relative to the value of philanthropic funding for several reasons:
Having gone down the philanthropy path, ceasing to provide bednets philanthropically now would be unlikely to lead to a flourishing bednet market. See more on this here under “People may not purchase ITNs because they are unavailable in local markets or because they expect to be given them for free”
There are many reasons people may buy fewer bednets in a market than is socially optimal: lack of available funds, present bias, positive externalities (not internalising the societal benefit of reducing malaria transmission).
Business owners can sell other, less crucial goods and services. But in poverty stricken locations, they cannot provide and distribute thousands of life-saving/improving bednets to the poor.
Warm regards,
Lucas
Thanks Lucas. Agree that these may be reasons for 100% coverage to be a reasonable philanthropic target which would be unachievable through commercial means.
Your first point includes the idea that some people may not purchase ITNs because they expect to be given them for free. This reinforces the idea in the essay that there is an extra cost to such distributions as nobody can make a living from selling nets in areas where people think the price should be zero.