Kelsey writes: “It’s sad that the US government opposes this approach. It also confuses me why the UK is pledging 60 million to help start the “free” market. Maybe they need that much to study it?”

I’m having a hard time understanding this as well. It sounds like free-market economist, Kenneth Arrow, pointed out that public initiatives to distribute anti-malaria drugs are less effective than private initiatives. The proposed solution:

Pharmaceutical wholesalers in poor countries should be able to buy [state-of-the-art malaria drugs] straight from the manufacturer for pennies instead of dollars, the panel said; donors would pay the difference directly to the manufacturer. That way, the drugs could be traded down the supply chain and be sold in even the smallest village at the same price or for less than the undesirable drugs–which would, with any luck, be pushed off the market.

But, it sounds like the “donors” are developed nations. The US government has opposed the proposal because (paraphrasing), “it’s expensive and unproven.” The UK and UNITAID are going to fund another trial run of this plan. (The first trial run funded by the Clinton Foundation was a resounding success in terms of the increased use of the high-quality malaria drugs in remote villages).

Of course, this is being touted as “letting the markets work.” Compared to the general practice of throwing money at foreign heads or state and hoping that they’ll use at least some of it to treat the sick, I guess it kind of is. But, to be clear, the market is defined by volantarism, and the “donors” here are taxpayers: involuntarily subsidizing pharmaceutical companies.

The Best of Kathryn Muratore