Is globalization good for your health?

Authors
Citation
D. Dollar, Is globalization good for your health?, B WHO, 79(9), 2001, pp. 827-833
Citations number
21
Categorie Soggetti
Envirnomentale Medicine & Public Health","Medical Research General Topics
Journal title
BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
ISSN journal
00429686 → ACNP
Volume
79
Issue
9
Year of publication
2001
Pages
827 - 833
Database
ISI
SICI code
0042-9686(2001)79:9<827:IGGFYH>2.0.ZU;2-B
Abstract
Four points are made about globalization and health. First, economic integr ation is a powerful force for raising the incomes of poor countries. In the past 20 years several large developing countries have opened up to trade a nd investment, and they are growing well - faster than the rich countries. Second, there is no tendency for income inequality to increase in countries that open up, The higher growth that accompanies globalization in developi ng countries generally benefits poor people, Since there is a large literat ure linking income of the poor to health status, we can be reasonably confi dent that globalization has indirect positive effects on nutrition, infant mortality and other health issues related to Income. Third, economic integr ation can obviously have adverse health effects as well: the transmission o f AIDS through migration and travel is a dramatic recent example. However, both relatively closed and relatively open developing countries have severe AIDS problems. The practical solution lies in health policies, not in poli cies on economic integration. Likewise, free trade in tobacco will lead to increased smoking unless health-motivated disincentives are put in place, G lobal integration requires supporting institutions and policies. Fourth, th e international architecture can be improved so that It Is more beneficial to poor countries. For example, with regard to intellectual property rights , it may be practical for pharmaceutical innovators to choose to have intel lectual property rights in either rich country markets or poor country ones , but not both. In this way incentives could be strong for research on dise ases in both rich and poor countries.