Search Results

During the 1990s, US government priorities for biomedical research funding became the focus of heated debate. Some members of Congress joined with organizations advocating on behalf of persons with various health problems to raise questions concerning how funds are allocated at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the major government agency supporting biomedical research. In turn, NIH officials produced a document setting forth the substantive criteria used to determine funding allocation. The agency also took steps to increase opportunities for members of the public to provide input on funding priorities. Yet the underlying debate remains unsettled. This chapter analyzes distributive and procedural justice issues raised by research priority setting, with the goal of clarifying the values, choices, and trade-offs at stake in this policy context. It also examines difficulties inherent in assigning priorities based on factors such as disease incidence, disease severity, prevention versus treatment, and age, gender, and ethnicity of affected populations. Lastly, it considers the potential roles of laypersons and experts in establishing priorities for publicly-funded health research.

According to the WHO, palliative care is a complex group of assessments and interventions to improve the quality of life for both patients and their families. Within this context, wherein the inclusion of families in the remit of care is required, more resources, manpower, and money are expected to be consumed and provided compared to conventional care. Furthermore, the WHO also advocates the awarding of palliative care, assessments, and interventions to all patients who are terminally ill and who have life-threatening but curable diseases. This philosophy shifts the allocation of funds towards the palliative setting and away from the other areas of health care. This chapter discusses the distribution of available resources within the different areas of health care, a process called macroallocation. Within the context of macroallocation, resources are allocated to different specialties and for different treatments. Fair macroallocation pertains to a distribution system that is designed to achieve two goals: the best use of resources by using cost-effective measurements and the fair distribution of benefits between individuals. The chapter also examines the ethics for allocation of funds within palliative care.

Promoters of Islamic finance have argued that it is not only consistent with capitalism, but that it is in many ways suited to a dynamic economy. More specifically, it is believed that Islamic finance could bring about more efficient mobilisation of savings, more equitable and just distribution of resources, more responsible and profitable lending, more stable banking systems and less volatile business cycles. This is of course a theory. The difficult part and the challenge is how to translate the broad principles of Islamic finance into a concrete reality. More specifically, in order to contribute to economic growth and development, banks must learn how to transform savings into real investments, transform small deposits into large loans, act as risk arbitrageurs among investments with different rates of return and risk levels, and devise an attractive mix of financial instruments. Following some comments on Islam and economic liberalism, this chapter discusses four sets of economic issues and challenges: the mobilization of savings; Islamic capital markets; economic development and fund allocation; and macro-economic policies. The rest of the chapter discusses the roles of Islamic finance in project finance and poverty reduction.

This chapter argues that financial formulae matter. Graduates are taught that all serious policy takes money. Where, then, does the money come from and how is it allocated? Like the UK, the chapter focuses on allocation, since the money overwhelmingly comes from UK taxes under the reserved control of Westminster. That limits the political rights of citizens to vary their obligations, and puts the focus on the extent to which the allocation of funds to the different parts of the UK reflects a coherent concept of equality and whether they deliver it. The chapter holds that current UK financial arrangements work against any shared concept of citizenship because they create inequality for no good reason. While similar levels of funding do not guarantee shared social citizenship, they certainly contribute to governments' ability to achieve it.