What are the analytical strengths and weaknesses in the mainstream economics approach to understanding the spread of HIV? Discuss with examples from ONE or MORE sub-Saharan African economies.
This article consist of 09 pages and 2402 words.
In order to get its full access, kindly email us at: sales@thedocument.com
A Review of Mainstream Economics Approach
to the HIV Prevalence
Introduction:
In 1981 Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) was first recognized as the one of the most devastating infectious disease of modern times. An increasing number of homosexual men caved in by this new opportunistic infection. A virus termed as the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) was identified as the causative agent of this disease. The reason of abrupt immergence and epidemic spread of HIV-1 has been the subject of intense study. Only related virus of HIV-1 in humans is HIV-2 which was the reason of immunodeficiency in few cases in past. Closest related virus of HIV-1 is Simian virus (SIVmac) which cause immunodeficiency in monkeys and large apes. This relationship provides the evidence that AIDS is the cross-species infection (Sharp and Hahn, 2011).
HIV transmission dangers from a contaminated source to a HIV-uninfected individual for parenteral, vertical, and sexual exposures (Patel et al., 2014). Vulnerability to the AIDS Is highly licked with the individual behaviours (Mann, et.al, 1998). The objective of any proposed arrangement with respect to AIDS is clear and apparently uncontroversial: to defend the wellbeing of general society by diminishing limiting or in a perfect world disposing of the spread of the illness. Considering moral investigation and handy contemplations plainly the main satisfactory arrangement is one that must depend on wilful endeavours by educated propelled people who must remain continually careful to the threats of spreading the AIDS infection and of getting to be tainted themselves (Macklin,1986). The individual-based general wellbeing approach gives “ripe ground” for mainstream economics to get included and to bit by bit become the commanding methodology received broadly by government, scholastics, reciprocal and worldwide improvement offices and Non-Governmental Organizations (Johnston, 2013: 3).
Sub-Saharan Africa, with 25.8 million individuals living with HIV (UNAIDS, no information), is both the origination and now the most influenced locale of the infection. Subgroups of the infection went to eastern, southern and western Africa at various time framing distinctive example over the previous decades (Iliffe, 2006).
This essay begins from the definition and a short history of mainstream economics, and moves to an assessment of the methodology as far as its qualities and shortcoming, which are additionally analysed by exact confirmations gathered in the different regions of Africa.
Definition and brief description of mainstream economics:
Mainstream economics is a term used to portray schools of monetary thoughts considered to be orthodox. A considerable lot of the hidden classes inside and ideas fundamental to standard financial matters are promptly educated at colleges. Many of the supporting models and convictions depend on ideas that include monetary shortage, the job of legislative guideline or other activity in affecting an actor’s choice, the idea of utility and the possibility that individuals are normal rational actors who will settle on choices that depend simply on accessible data and not feeling. But the school of economic thoughts other than the mainstream economics are more critical of the role of government and the rationality of the actors. Recent studies show that people are not completely rational, markets cannot be predicted to be efficient and the factors influencing the individual decisions are not entirely quantifiable (Kenton, 2018). These days, mainstream economics has been regarded as overwhelming sociology with expository ability to address a huge assortment of issues including the spread of HIV. What’s more, the historical backdrop of mainstream economics is the starting point of its scientific quality and shortcoming talked about in the following segment.
Evaluation of the mainstream economic approach for HIV AIDS prevalence:
Mainstream economic approaches have their pros and cons. They are proved to be efficient in data collection and prediction of the outcomes based on the quantitative analyses. To understand the spread of HIV it fundamentally ignores the social cost of the disease through the language being used in theory and methodology while also simplifying its representative individual as the main factor in HIV prevalence. One of the most influential critic of this approach Deborah Johnston suggested that the micro economic approaches do not hold up to experimental investigation. Second, their premises are in a general sense broken – and this is a result of their dependence on methodological independence and objective decision.
Public health approach of HIV prevalence depends upon the individual behaviours and choices. Behaviours and decisions can’t be predicted rationally but a nearly presentable outcome of this can be obtained by data collected from the focus groups and implying that on the whole population. For example, (Sagaon-Teyssier et al., 2017) formulated an empirical formula to calculate the HIV prevalence by acquiring information like individual economic condition, level of sex education, demand for safe sex, pattern of alcohol use and their sexual preferences etc. Models like these were rendered even less persuading by the way that they neglected to set out or demonstrate the miniaturized scale causal component that may interface full scale financial determinants with HIV transmission. The accurate instruments by which, for instance, indigence prompts practices that increment HIV chance, and consequently prevalence levels, is infrequently spelt out and is viewed as general – for example with a similar connection among destitution and HIV predominance all over. Therefore, there was some investigative disjuncture between these macro-economic models and the overwhelming public health approaches, which centre prevalently around individual conduct change (Katz, 2009).
Explicitly modelling the choices made by the rational individuals give rise to micro economic approach. One of the earliest and accurate model of this made by Philipson and Posner (1995). They evaluated the way people build up a optimal dimension of introduction to HIV based on the expense of condoms, information of transmissions components and the conceivable effect on their life expectancy. People utilize these elements, they contend, to decide if they ought to take part in dangerous sex. The price of dangerous sex is the effect on future and this increments with HIV prevalence. Philipson and Posner recommend that explicitly dynamic people who trust themselves to be HIV-adverse will make strides, (for example, utilizing condoms) to bring down hazard. Be that as it may, some non-zero dimension of HIV prevalence might be optimal for a…
Recent Comments