Neglected infectious diseases: are push and pull incentive mechanisms suitable for promoting research?
Infectious diseases are among the main causes of death and disability in developing countries, and they are a major reason for the health disparity between rich and poor countries. One of the reasons for this public health tragedy is a lack of lifesaving essential medicines, which either do not exist or badly need improvements. In this article, we analyse which of the push and pull mechanisms proposed in the recent literature may serve to promote research into neglected infectious diseases. A combination of push programs that subsidise research inputs through direct funding and pull programs that reward research output rather than research input may be the appropriate strategy to stimulate research into neglected diseases. On the one hand, early-stage (basic) research should be supported through push mechanisms, such as research grants or publicly financed research institutions. On the other hand, pull mechanisms, such as prize funds that link reward payments to the health impacts of effective medicines, have the potential to stimulate research into neglected diseases.
|Date of creation:||25 May 2011|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mrazek, Monique F. & Mossialos, Elias, 2003. "Stimulating pharmaceutical research and development for neglected diseases," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 75-88, April.
- Frank R. Lichtenberg & Joel Waldfogel, 2003. "Does Misery Love Company? Evidence from pharmaceutical markets before and after the Orphan Drug Act," NBER Working Papers 9750, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Buckup, Sebastian, 2008. "Global public–private partnerships against neglected diseases: building governance structures for effective outcomes," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(01), pages 31-50, January.
- Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004.
"Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
- Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2003. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence From the Pharmaceutical Industry," NBER Working Papers 10038, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," Levine's Working Paper Archive 228400000000000002, David K. Levine.
- Lybecker, Kristina M. & Freeman, Robert A., 2007. "Funding pharmaceutical innovation through direct tax credits," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(03), pages 267-284, July.
- Ernst R. Berndt & Rachel Glennerster & Michael R. Kremer & Jean Lee & Ruth Levine & Georg Weizsäcker & Heidi Williams, 2007. "Advance market commitments for vaccines against neglected diseases: estimating costs and effectiveness," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 491-511.
- Ernst R. Berndt & Rachel Glennerster & Michael Kremer & Jean Lee & Ruth Levine & Georg Weizsacker & Heidi Williams, 2006. "Advance Market Commitments for Vaccines Against Neglected Diseases: Estimating Costs and Effectiveness," CID Working Papers 127, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
- Harhoff, Dietmar & Scherer, Frederic M. & Vopel, Katrin, 2003. "Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1343-1363, September.
- Michael Kremer & Heidi Williams, 2010. "Incentivizing Innovation: Adding to the Tool Kit," NBER Chapters,in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 10, pages 1-17 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Michael Kremer & Heidi Williams, 2010. "Incentivizing Innovation: Adding to the Tool Kit," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17.
- Bronwyn H. Hall & John van Reenen, 1999. "How Effective are Fiscal Incentives for R&D? A New Review of the Evidence," NBER Working Papers 7098, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:40193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.