Week 8 Analysis

Once again, the readings do not pertain directly to our topic, but some things did stand out. In Global Transformations, Held, et al show strong evidence for the quick rise of multinational corporations (MNCs) since 1945. The MNCs did exist and they were growing in number prior to World War II, but since the end of that conflict, their influence and magnitude have skyrocketed. How does this affect the issues of HIV/AIDS? For one thing, if MNCs "account for around two-thirds of world trade," (Held, et al, 236) and if many of these MNCs have larger GDPs than many nations, we cannot discount their role in the global ecnonomy as well as global politics. Nations will want to have these MNCs within their borders so that the nations can earn some revenue from them. It is imperative that these MNCs are just as accountable as world governments since they directly affect the people of various nations. As consumers of and investors in these MNCs, we must demand just treatment of workers and care for the environment no matter where the production facility of the MNC is. Safe working facilities, clean water, etc. are necessary to combat the spread of HIV and fair wages for workers help those living with the disease earn enough money to supply for their health care costs. Because of the influence of the MNCs -- both on governments and the citizens of various nations -- they must be paragons of good business. The checks and balances for MNCs are difficult to maintain since different nations will have different business standards. As we discussed in class this week, corruption is a real problem in many nations. Several of these nations, I would assume, have MNCs in them or looking to enter into them. If the MNCs are expected to play the corruption game themselves, where is there transformation? Where are the beneficial effects of capitalism -- e.g., the bolstering of the middle class -- if the largest capitalistic entities are corrupt themselves?

Held, et al write:

multinational production is much more common in the pharmaceutical industry, in large measure because of segmentation between markets arising from heavy demand from localized health services, which is best met locally. Accordingly, production is highly internationalized; overseas affiliates account for up to half of all pharmaceuticals sales and the majority of production in developing countries. (Ibid., 266)

If this is the case, then why is it so difficult for developing nations to receive the ARTs they need? Why is it so difficult to get the triple drug therapies to Africa and South East Asia? On our Wiki, we quote Avert.org, stating, "There are 6.5 million people in developing nations who need life-saving AIDS drugs, but fewer than 1 million receive them." Can we not encourage these pharmaceutical companies to shift some production of ARTs to the regions who most desparately need them? I understand the research and development (R&D) carry heavy costs for these companies, but I wonder if that is the entire reason why the drugs are so expensive or why patents for ARTs have not opened up. What is the role of the investor in keeping ARTs from Africa? Would we as shareholders have to take hits in our portfolios in order to help those most in need? (I do not ask these questions in an entirely hypothetical manner since I have a mutual fund with holdings in Pfizer and Merck.)

Jan Nederveen Pieterse's Globalization and Culture is an interesting book, but it is difficult to relate it to our topic. If nothing else, seeing the hybridization or post-hybridization of cultures (Pieterse, 77-81) should make us realize that the issue of HIV/AIDS is not a localized or an ethnic specific problem -- of course we should have realized that with the fact that the disease is in virtually every nation in the world at this time. One of the interesting points Pieterse raises is that the idea of societies being equated with nations is dwindling. Instead, "A global sociology is taking shape around notions such as social networks (rather than 'societies'), border zones, boundary crossing, diaspora, and global society." (Ibid., 81) As I reflect on that statement, I do believe that Pieterse is correct, but in terms of transformations to meet global health crises, it seems that the task has become that much more difficult. Changing nations is one thing, but changing all different tribes and various social networks seems to be much more difficult and specialized. Of course, I could be taking a top-down approach when thinking about macro-transformations, while the social network understanding is much more grassroots.

Much of our discussion in class about transformation makes me think of H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and culture typologies. I am somewhat familiar with the arguments -- who could not be after three years at Fuller? -- though I have never read Niebuhr's book. Regardless, I thought that the paper, "Soft Difference: Theological Reflections on the Relation Between Church and Culture in 1 Peter" by Miroslav Volf would benefit our class discussion. In the paper, Volf argues that all five of Niebuhr's typologies can be found in 1 Peter and that we do not have to adopt only one method of interacting with our surrounding milieu.