It seems strange to me that only pharmaceutical companies would have to achieve said index. What is it about a Viagra company that makes them more responsible for solving global health issues than e.g. IKEA?
The only thing I can come up with on the fly is that they take up resources from the same pool of researchers. I’m not sure that’s a satisfactory reason for disadvantaging one company over another, though.
What if nation-wide company taxes were raised by a tiny margin and pharmaceutical companies could compete for DALY-subsidies?
(I realize the chance of me having a better idea than the writers of the book is rather miniscule. Just looking for holes in my view)
What is it about a Viagra company that makes them more responsible for solving global health issues than e.g. IKEA?
Yes, for some reason the proposal combines a carbon-trading-style-scheme with a decision to make pharmaceutical companies pay for it all. The latter seems to be totally separable—just distribute the credits in proportion (at a slightly lower ratio than the target) to revenues! This would also significantly help address the problem I outlined in the other comment, by reducing the incentive just to shift revenue ex-US.
My default position would be that IKEA have an equal obligation, but that it’s much more difficult and less efficient to try and make IKEA fulfill that obligation.
I think you’re understating the importance of taking up the resources. There aren’t THAT many super high quality medical researchers who can credibly signal their high quality.
It seems strange to me that only pharmaceutical companies would have to achieve said index. What is it about a Viagra company that makes them more responsible for solving global health issues than e.g. IKEA?
The only thing I can come up with on the fly is that they take up resources from the same pool of researchers. I’m not sure that’s a satisfactory reason for disadvantaging one company over another, though.
What if nation-wide company taxes were raised by a tiny margin and pharmaceutical companies could compete for DALY-subsidies?
(I realize the chance of me having a better idea than the writers of the book is rather miniscule. Just looking for holes in my view)
Yes, for some reason the proposal combines a carbon-trading-style-scheme with a decision to make pharmaceutical companies pay for it all. The latter seems to be totally separable—just distribute the credits in proportion (at a slightly lower ratio than the target) to revenues! This would also significantly help address the problem I outlined in the other comment, by reducing the incentive just to shift revenue ex-US.
My default position would be that IKEA have an equal obligation, but that it’s much more difficult and less efficient to try and make IKEA fulfill that obligation.
I think you’re understating the importance of taking up the resources. There aren’t THAT many super high quality medical researchers who can credibly signal their high quality.