Advance Monopoly Commitment?

Public Health Ethics 4 (3):297-302 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article is a critical discussion of the Advance Market Commitment (AMC) proposal for how to incentivize research and development of drugs for neglected diseases. The main claim of the article is that the ‘winner-takes-all’ problem that mars a simple prize proposal for how to incentivize research and development of drugs for neglected diseases also tarnishes the AMC proposal. The conclusion of the article is that the AMC proposal should be rejected as an incentivizing scheme for research and development of drugs for neglected diseases. This conclusion follows from the main claim of the article together with two plausible assumptions that are not argued for in the article

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,302

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-07-14

Downloads
66 (#332,918)

6 months
12 (#218,371)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jørn Sønderholm
Aalborg University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Access to medicines.Thomas Pogge - 2008 - Public Health Ethics 1 (2):73-82.
Prizes and Parasites: Incentive Models for Addressing Chagas Disease.Sara E. Crager & Matt Price - 2009 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 37 (2):292-304.

Add more references