Bill Gates, a famous and successful American philanthropist, who became renowned for co-founding Microsoft is now overwhelmingly influential in the global health sector which led him to be dubbed the “De facto public health Czar”.  Despite a complete lack of expertise in this area, since he established the charitable organisation Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation he has gained a positive reputation as wholehearted philanthropist donating to tackle diseases such as AIDS and Malaria in Africa, as well as mitigating climate change. More recently he put his whole weight behind tackling the Covid-19 pandemic, especially to provide vaccines to the most vulnerable countries in the Global South.  Some would argue he was the architect of the global health response to Covid-19.

The Gates Foundation is now the biggest charitable organisation in the world and played a huge role in the Covid-19 pandemic in setting up global public/private partnerships like the Vaccine Alliance GAVI, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) which the Gates Foundation heavily finances. Gates, who was already famous for donating large sums of money to fight climate change and poverty, has been increasingly investing and donating in the health sector. To give an example, his foundation is the second biggest funder of the World Health Organisation (WHO) after the US government. That must yield some sort of influence within the health sector as described by Global health consultant DR Mohga Kamal-Yanny that dubbed Bill Gates as the “Tsar of global health” in the revealing 2013 documentary film “Fire in the blood”.

This documentary, through the example of the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa, describes the  problems for low-middle income countries to access generic life-saving drugs due to the intellectual property (IP) monopolies that pharmaceutical companies hold in the Global North. In this case, the generic antiretroviral medicines that were needed in Africa to curb the raising cases of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that most people in the continent could not afford at the price set by Pharma companies in rich countries. This documentary is a great insight and the first step into understanding what has gone wrong in the global health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is definitely worth a watch.

The IP regime is dangerous as it restricts the most vulnerable people and countries from producing generics of life-saving medicines and technologies. The IP regime stands on the principle that, because these companies have invested in Research & Development (R&D) for the vaccine, they have the right to hold the royalties for at least 20 years and the profits that they make in that timeframe. Thus, they not only refuse to share the know-how and research around the development of the vaccines, but they also preclude countries from producing the vaccines themselves because it would breach the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement, specifically the Trade Related Aspect of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) agreement. This agreement allows Pharma companies that own the intellectual property of the life-saving vaccine to sue countries that might decide to develop cheaper versions of the vaccine to distribute in poorer countries. Author and anthropologist Jason Hickle describes the IP regime as a “Major mechanism of imperial power in the global economy”

The Gates Foundation invests 90% of its money in institutions and organisations such as Oxford (namely $93,000 for Development of Solutions to Improve Global Health) Harvard, MasterCard, and pharmaceutical companies like GSK, Pfizer, and Merk,  mostly in countries like the United states, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. The Foundation exerts its influence by creating financial links with powerful and influential institutions by giving funds and donations, says an investigative journalist in the newly released Channel 4 documentary  ‘The Billionaires Who Made Our World: Bill Gates’ .

One example of the influence that the Gates Foundation holds is that of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. At the beginning of the pandemic, Oxford University had pledged to make its vaccine available to any drugmaker that requested it free of charge or at a very low price. However, according to Kaiser Health News the Gates Foundation was involved in persuading Oxford University to sell the patent of their vaccine to AstraZeneca, an Anglo-Swedish company. What is more interesting, the Oxford University vaccine was 97% publicly funded  which makes an even stronger case that it should belong to the public and thus not be patented.

Interestingly there is a provision in the TRIPS agreement that specifically allows countries to waive intellectual property rights to make easier access to essential medicines during a health emergency, this was introduced by the WTO with the Doha Declaration in 2001. Despite these flexibilities, despite 100 Global South countries calling on the WTO to waive the patent on the COVID-19 vaccine for the duration of the pandemic, the so-called ‘ TRIPS waiver’ did not materialise because of the opposition from wealthy nations, resulting in millions of deaths that could have been avoided.

Let’s set one thing straight, if we are serious about moving away from colonialism and neo-colonialism, the way we deal with global health crises needs to change. We need to move away from a global health model based on charity, to a model based on solidarity, where the technologies, know-how, and recipes, are shared between countries not sold to the highest bidder, and where patents are waived in case of a global health emergency rather than prioritising the interests of pharmaceutical companies and friends.  Rather than making sure everyone in the world would receive covid-19 vaccines equally, we rolled out a model where rich countries hoarded vaccines exceeding their domestic need, while poor countries had to wait until the Global North and the Pharma companies thought it was a good moment to be donating to the poor and vulnerable as an act of kindness, or as some might call it, philanthropy.

Dr. Jonas Salk, the inventor of the Polio vaccine in 1953, when asked who owned the patent on the vaccine, famously said “The people I would say, there is no patent, would you patent the sun?“. If Dr. Salk understood the importance of free life-saving drugs in the 1950s, how is it that in 2023 we still haven’t understood that monopolies need to be waived during health emergencies? That the lives of millions of people matter more than mere profits?

This is just one of the many examples out there that prove capitalism is simply not designed to meet human needs, especially during a global health emergency. As Jason Hickel describes in the Citations Needed podcast, we need to stop buying into the PR narrative that capitalism is going to solve the world’s issues such as crises, poverty, and inequality because it’s doing what it was designed to do, facilitate the accumulation of capital.

Since the industrial era, it is evident that our contemporary society has expanded in numerous aspects. However, a concerning global mental health crisis, alongside climate change, leads us to the realisation that our current economic system that aspires to endless growth, is counterproductive for human and/or planetary wellbeing. This post will then explore the extent to which the obsession with GDP-growth in which the economy operates is failing to deliver this purpose, while exploring alternative economic models and metrics that have started to be adopted worldwide, such as the Happy Planet Index (HPI) and the implementation of wellbeing economic principles in Scotland.

In 1972, the Club of Rome published the ground-breaking book “Limits to Growth”, concluding that the natural resources available are finite. Humans cannot continue with the current pace of consumption, particularly since technology will be unable to solve climate change (The Club of Rome 1972); the latest IPCC report warns us that delayed climate action will result on an unliveable future. Additionally, 2009 was recorded as the only year when GHG emissions reduced and in which global economy did not grow (Grist 2015).

A remarkable proposal is therefore to decline the current economic system by exploring alternative pathways to measure progress going beyond GDP. Elements such as sense of belonging or access to nature are gaining recognition, and similarly, metrics like The Happy Planet Index (HPI) are presenting challenges to the mainstream capitalist standards. Being the leading measure of ‘sustainable wellbeing’, the HPI measures ‘efficiency’ by three key indicators: Wellbeing, Life Expectancy and Ecological footprint.

WEF https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/greenest-happiest-country-in-the-world/

Costa Rica is the country that leads the highest HPI score, and interestingly, it surpasses Western economies on sustainable wellbeing. In 2021, Central and South America countries dominated the top 10 rank. To break free from the general obsession with GDP growth, societies thriving on higher wellbeing lifestyles and lower ecological footprints should be the point of aspiration. Using the minimum natural resources, countries such as Costa Rica get to generate the maximum ‘outputs’ of long, happy lives. The HPI website offers a tool  that compares the results from different countries… if we take Costa Rica and the U.S., the figures speak by themselves.

As a nation whose GDP per capita is below half of the U.S.’s, Costa Rica, outperforms on life expectancy, wellbeing, and environmental sustainability. The U.S. was the lower scoring G7 nation, the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll) (2022) suggests.

From this observation, we see that both human and ecological wellbeing are attainable; however, to what extent are countries able to implement alternative economic measures within policy? To answer this question, let’s look at the case of Scotland, a country that since 2018 is part of the “WEGo” (Wellbeing Economy Governments) partnership, alongside Iceland, Finland, New Zealand, and Wales.  A Wellbeing Economy “delivers social justice on a healthy planet”, and it is based on the following five key aspects required for collective wellbeing: Dignity, Participation, Fairness, Purpose and Nature at the core.

WEAll Scotland (2022)

Only a year after joining the WEGo group, Sturgeon herself gave a TED talk on “why governments should prioritise wellbeing”. As a country with some of the most ambitious climate change targets, and Councils in agreement of supporting this narrative, the Scottish Government is openly committed to an economic transformation aiming at “delivering a just transition to a net zero, nature-positive economy based on the principles of equality, prosperity and resilience”.

As Trebeck (2020) noted, in a wellbeing economy there are certain industries such as the oil sector, will not be as prominent (that is, if they exist at all), reason why a transition towards greener jobs through the transferring of skills is a feasible opportunity, as well as moving towards circular economic initiatives. In fact, the Scottish Government recently opened a consultation around circular economic practices. There were significant improvements in waste management and recycling systems; however, WEAll Scotland (2022) points that nature restoration initiatives are still missed, since “the extraction, consumption and waste of materials is deeply embedded in our current economic system”. Another signal that despite significant efforts, the nation is rooted on a wider, dominant system that prioritises economic growth. The taxation scenario equally contributes to greater inequalities. Trebeck (2020) also suggests that community wealth building (this is, budling economies from the community up by guaranteeing more local spending and local ownership) as way for businesses to deliver for its communities, and ultimately a wellbeing economy would be requiring less redistribution because the poverty gap would be smaller.

Another crucial element is a healthy work-life balance, and we know that Scotland has committed to testing how a four-day working week might look like in the nation as it has been proved to improve employee’s satisfaction and productivity. Research from the New Economic Foundation showed that shorter working weeks give people more control over their time and autonomy (Flexibility Works 2021).

The recent pandemic showed us that we as a society, are vulnerable. Governments have the capacity to transform the status quo and building a path for system change. By adopting new indicators to measure progress and models like the wellbeing economy, countries around the globe are beginning to write a new narrative. For this reason, it is crucial that decisionmakers are elected for their concerns on ecological and wellbeing issues. We need leaders that are conscious enough to prioritise these aspects beyond GDP, and a supportive framework by which they can implement these. Even though there is a long way left to go, Scotland is an example that this is possible.

Reference list

1. Understanding “The Limits of Growth”: A clear warning and message of hope (1972)
2. https://www.gov.scot/publications/wellbeing-economy-toolkit-supporting-place-based-economic-strategy-policy-development/pages/3/ Scotland WEllb ec
3. Quick, A (2020) https://neweconomics.org/2020/10/wellbeing-and-gdp-explained
4. WEAll Scotland Briefing – April 2022
5. Michaelson et al. 2009 The Happy Planet Index 2.0 https://neweconomics.org/2009/06/happy-planet-index-2-0
6. WEAll (2022) https://weall.org/the-latest-happy-planet-index-costa-rica-tops-the-list-beating-western-economies-on-sustainable-wellbeing
7. Trebeck, K. (2020) WEAll Ideas: Little Summaries of Big Issues – A wellbeing economy for Scotland; Extract from position paper prepared for Citizens Assembly of Scotland. Available: https://www.weallscotland.org/_files/ugd/d7012c_feae0c2c89f34741b62831a15c78a43c.pdf?index=true

Since the industrial era, it is evident that our contemporary society has expanded in numerous aspects. However, a concerning global mental health crisis, alongside climate change, leads us to the realisation that our current economic system that aspires to endless growth, is counterproductive for human and/or planetary wellbeing. This post will then explore the extent to which the obsession with GDP-growth in which the economy operates is failing to deliver this purpose, while exploring alternative economic models and metrics that have started to be adopted worldwide, such as the Happy Planet Index (HPI) and the implementation of wellbeing economic principles in Scotland.

In 1972, the Club of Rome published the ground-breaking book “Limits to Growth”, concluding that the natural resources available are finite. Humans cannot continue with the current pace of consumption, particularly since technology will be unable to solve climate change (The Club of Rome 1972); the latest IPCC report warns us that delayed climate action will result on an unliveable future. Additionally, 2009 was recorded as the only year when GHG emissions reduced and in which global economy did not grow (Grist 2015).

A remarkable proposal is therefore to decline the current economic system by exploring alternative pathways to measure progress going beyond GDP. Elements such as sense of belonging or access to nature are gaining recognition, and similarly, metrics like The Happy Planet Index (HPI) are presenting challenges to the mainstream capitalist standards. Being the leading measure of ‘sustainable wellbeing’, the HPI measures ‘efficiency’ by three key indicators: Wellbeing, Life Expectancy and Ecological footprint.

WEF https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/greenest-happiest-country-in-the-world/

Costa Rica is the country that leads the highest HPI score, and interestingly, it surpasses Western economies on sustainable wellbeing. In 2021, Central and South America countries dominated the top 10 rank. To break free from the general obsession with GDP growth, societies thriving on higher wellbeing lifestyles and lower ecological footprints should be the point of aspiration. Using the minimum natural resources, countries such as Costa Rica get to generate the maximum ‘outputs’ of long, happy lives. The HPI website offers a tool  that compares the results from different countries… if we take Costa Rica and the U.S., the figures speak by themselves.

As a nation whose GDP per capita is below half of the U.S.’s, Costa Rica, outperforms on life expectancy, wellbeing, and environmental sustainability. The U.S. was the lower scoring G7 nation, the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll) (2022) suggests.

From this observation, we see that both human and ecological wellbeing are attainable; however, to what extent are countries able to implement alternative economic measures within policy? To answer this question, let’s look at the case of Scotland, a country that since 2018 is part of the “WEGo” (Wellbeing Economy Governments) partnership, alongside Iceland, Finland, New Zealand, and Wales.  A Wellbeing Economy “delivers social justice on a healthy planet”, and it is based on the following five key aspects required for collective wellbeing: Dignity, Participation, Fairness, Purpose and Nature at the core.

WEAll Scotland (2022)

Only a year after joining the WEGo group, Sturgeon herself gave a TED talk on “why governments should prioritise wellbeing”. As a country with some of the most ambitious climate change targets, and Councils in agreement of supporting this narrative, the Scottish Government is openly committed to an economic transformation aiming at “delivering a just transition to a net zero, nature-positive economy based on the principles of equality, prosperity and resilience”.

As Trebeck (2020) noted, in a wellbeing economy there are certain industries such as the oil sector, will not be as prominent (that is, if they exist at all), reason why a transition towards greener jobs through the transferring of skills is a feasible opportunity, as well as moving towards circular economic initiatives. In fact, the Scottish Government recently opened a consultation around circular economic practices. There were significant improvements in waste management and recycling systems; however, WEAll Scotland (2022) points that nature restoration initiatives are still missed, since “the extraction, consumption and waste of materials is deeply embedded in our current economic system”. Another signal that despite significant efforts, the nation is rooted on a wider, dominant system that prioritises economic growth. The taxation scenario equally contributes to greater inequalities. Trebeck (2020) also suggests that community wealth building (this is, budling economies from the community up by guaranteeing more local spending and local ownership) as way for businesses to deliver for its communities, and ultimately a wellbeing economy would be requiring less redistribution because the poverty gap would be smaller.

Another crucial element is a healthy work-life balance, and we know that Scotland has committed to testing how a four-day working week might look like in the nation as it has been proved to improve employee’s satisfaction and productivity. Research from the New Economic Foundation showed that shorter working weeks give people more control over their time and autonomy (Flexibility Works 2021).

The recent pandemic showed us that we as a society, are vulnerable. Governments have the capacity to transform the status quo and building a path for system change. By adopting new indicators to measure progress and models like the wellbeing economy, countries around the globe are beginning to write a new narrative. For this reason, it is crucial that decisionmakers are elected for their concerns on ecological and wellbeing issues. We need leaders that are conscious enough to prioritise these aspects beyond GDP, and a supportive framework by which they can implement these. Even though there is a long way left to go, Scotland is an example that this is possible.

Reference list

1. Understanding “The Limits of Growth”: A clear warning and message of hope (1972)
2. https://www.gov.scot/publications/wellbeing-economy-toolkit-supporting-place-based-economic-strategy-policy-development/pages/3/ Scotland WEllb ec
3. Quick, A (2020) https://neweconomics.org/2020/10/wellbeing-and-gdp-explained
4. WEAll Scotland Briefing – April 2022
5. Michaelson et al. 2009 The Happy Planet Index 2.0 https://neweconomics.org/2009/06/happy-planet-index-2-0
6. WEAll (2022) https://weall.org/the-latest-happy-planet-index-costa-rica-tops-the-list-beating-western-economies-on-sustainable-wellbeing
7. Trebeck, K. (2020) WEAll Ideas: Little Summaries of Big Issues – A wellbeing economy for Scotland; Extract from position paper prepared for Citizens Assembly of Scotland. Available: https://www.weallscotland.org/_files/ugd/d7012c_feae0c2c89f34741b62831a15c78a43c.pdf?index=true

South Koreas energy industry can be demonstrated over the past few decades by the nuclear power arena which has been a bedrock for economic development as it provides over a quarter of their energy (25.3% in 2019). The World Nuclear Association named South Korea the “worlds most prominent nuclear energy country” (WNA, 2022) due to their cost-effective and highly reliable nuclear efforts which boost their economy through trade. However, there are serious risks and implications within and out-with the country causing controversy and posing the question – is nuclear power the most viably acceptable method of energy that will be able to contribute to economic growth and livelihood without any repercussions?. This blog sets out to illustrate the argument within this by examining differing energy options through development of nuclear energy over time and its impact on the political economy. Further analysed by diving into the geopolitics surrounding South Korea and how varying implications have progressed the energy industry.

The nuclear programme of SK has helped accelerate economic growth and development over the past few decades as they have excelled on the international stage by supplying nuclear reactors to countries like UAE and Turkey (Sirin, 2010) creating a reliable source of revenue. Through the countries geopolitical surroundings, neighbouring countries have played a major front seat role in the journey of South Koreas nuclear programme. In particular North Korea’s strong stance on nuclear has led SK to view nuclear energy as an essential component of its national security strategy, leading to significant investment in the countries expansion of nuclear power plants. Further boosting their economy and development through the acquisition of nuclear technology and expertise from other countries. However, their nuclear energy industries growth raised some tensions between neighbours China and the US – who are slightly uneasy with the nuclear reactors located just outside the borders (find a stat or fact of tensions – which impacts the economy). These safety concerns by citizens within and surrounding South Korea were exacerbated in the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, which due to a natural disaster, shut down nuclear reactors and caused a loss of power.

The radioactive harmful waves that came from the Fukushima disaster caused widespread environmental damage and led to the evacuation of over two-hundred thousand people costing around $200 billion in damages and a loss of public confidence in nuclear power globally. This caused Japan to stop all nuclear power plants and instead have increased reliance on gas. Raising alternative ideas the public supported in the tiger state South Korea as the country is prone to natural disasters such as earthquakes there and the economy cannot afford to take such high risks. However, alternative energy such as gas has a worse track record and so is of greater risk than nuclear as nuclear power has yet to record a single fatality (Hong, 2018) and the sheer price of gas makes it not economically viable to have gas-based power systems (van de Ven & Fouquet, 2017). Furthermore, South Korea do not have their own domestic gas reserves meaning they will rely heavily on a single high price volatility source which will clearly damage the economies safe condition. Suggesting gas is not a reliable alternative to nuclear power as it poses a much greater risk to health and the economy.

In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster internationally, some countries reduced nuclear power such as Germany who shut down all of their seventeen nuclear reactors which is in complete contrast with South Korea who instead increased their construction of reactors and pursued more export opportunities. This was achieved as public opinion surrounding nuclear energy – even after the impact of the Fukushima disaster – has continuously been politically driven resulting in them becoming increasingly polarized. Meaning with political leaders framing nuclear power as a key tool for green growth, SK were able to advance their nuclear industry and boost their economy further. As evidently shown by scholars who agree countries with rapid economic growth rates bet on nuclear energy in anticipation of growing demand (Abdenur, 2014) highlighting the importance of economic considerations for advancing nuclear power.

Despite SK being successful in developing nuclear technology it was not quick enough to establish a legal framework in dealing with radioactive waste taking a hit on the countries economy. In the 1970s trade was tariffed by other countries (Canada and US) in which regulatory requirements were applied as mandatory requirements for construction permits. These discrepancies in the project led to a “huge loss of funding” (Kang, 2008) and it was not up until the 1990s that their standards matched those of internationally. However, despite the radioactive waste issue, nuclear energy has often been depicted as a ‘clean’ energy source as evidence from the US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz shows, nuclear energy represents around 60% of carbon-free electricity generation in the US (Moniz, 2016) . This advances the South Korean governments objectives as their promotion of nuclear energy allows them to maintain control of the national economy. Evidence of the low unit cost of nuclear energy compared to others such as coal and renewable energy sources can be seen in the chart below which also shows the significantly high (193.12 KRW/kwh) units oil produces.

Picture from (Joo-Kang, 2022).

South Korea is 14^th country internationally to legislate a carbon target, with an attempt for a 40% reduction from 2018-2030 and carbon neutrality by 2050. Since taking office in 2017, President Moon Jae-in opened a new chapter in South Korea’s nuclear energy politics as he planned to gradually phase out nuclear power. He fought not for the dangerous profit SK had been previously but instead put the safety of citizens at the forefront. The proposition applied to achieve this is known as the Korean Green New Deal framework in which the SK government will use both public and private finance to expand the capacity of generating energy (Oh, 2021). Ultimately the goal of SK’s new energy policy is to create an affordable and reliable supply system using alternative methods than nuclear due to its dangers. More recently, the election of President Yoon Suk-yeol in 2022 saw him scrap this previous policy for denuclearisation and instead set a target for nuclear power to provide a minimum of 30% of their electricity in 2030 (WNA, 2022) creating greater uncertainty and damage to the economy as the halts and re-opening of nuclear reactors results in greater damages to the environment and is increasingly costly.

Word count excluding bibliography – 1,072.

References

Abdenur, A. &. (2014). Nuclear Energy and the BRICS: Competition and contestation in South Africa. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 55-66.

Association, W. N. (2022, November ). Nuclear Power in South Korea. Retrieved from World Nuclear Association : https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/south-korea.aspx

Hong, S. &. (2018). At the crossroads: An uncertain future facing the electricity‐generation sector in South Korea. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 522-532.

Joo-Kang, M. (2022, November 24). In Charts: South Korea’s new energy strategy which has nuclear at its core. THINK – Economic and Financial Analysis.

Kang, S. (2008). Lessons Learned From the Development of Korean Nuclear Power Programme. Nuclear Power Engineering Section – IAEA.

Moniz, E. (2016, October 24). Nuclear Energy at a crossroads. Retrieved from The Centre for Strategic and International Studies: https://www.csis.org/search?search_api_views_fulltext=nuclear%20energy&sort_by=search_api_relevance.

Oh, H. &. (2021). South Korea’s 2050 Carbon Neutrality Policy. East Asian Policy, 33-46.

Sirin, S. (2010). An assessment of Turkey’s nuclear energy policy in light of South Korea’s nuclear experience. Energy Policy, 6145-6152.

van de Ven, D. &. (2017). Historical energy price shocks and their changing effects on the economy. Energy Economics , 204-216.

The winners of the competition  chosen by the university art curator, Jane Cameron, were:

Within Reach (Shani Doudet)

Solitude in the fog (Lucia Hernandez)

Finding my cure (Julia Ciemiega)

There were two runners up also Spreading connection (Levente Magyar) and A Ray of Hope (Lauryn Wood).

Well done to all!

Thanks to everybody for these STUNNING entries!! They are wonderful and a testimony to the creativity of these challenging times. It’s such a pleasure to take time to look at them closely.

The competition is now closed and judging will begin over the course of next week in Stirling. We’ll keep you informed.

Thank you again.

Aedín