Public discussion of global healthcare issues is dominated by those who believe that top-down, government-driven interventions are the solution to the myriad health problems suffered by people in less developed countries. This thinking is responsible for a plethora of harmful policies, ranging from a drive towards socialized healthcare systems, to calls for the centralization and semi-nationalization of pharmaceutical research and development, to impractical but grandiose UN-sponsored schemes for tackling HIV/AIDS and malaria.In spite of the abysmal track record of top-down approaches, non-governmental organizations and UN agencies continue to promote them, to the detriment of the private sector, economic development, and human health. The resulting politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. Meanwhile, cost-effective and simple interventions such as vaccination are being subordinated to other more politically correct diseases.This centralizing mindset has also resulted in many governments in less developed countries attempting to plan and control universal healthcare systems, which has encouraged rationing, inequitable access, and entrenched corruption. It has also seriously undermined the effectiveness of overseas development aid. Moreover, the politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. As a result, cost-effective and simple interventions are neglected by donors.There has to date been little public discussion of the role of markets and their underlying institutions--property rights and the rule of law--in improving human health. Economic growth and globalization has led to unprecedented improvements in human health. The challenge is to enable the poorest countries to take part more fully in this process. This work demonstrates how current thinking is flawed and proposes practical ways of improving health in lower income countries.

Public discussion of global healthcare issues is dominated by those who believe that top-down, government-driven interventions are the solution to the myriad health problems suffered by people in less developed countries. This thinking is responsible for a plethora of harmful policies, ranging from a drive towards socialized healthcare systems, to calls for the centralization and semi-nationalization of pharmaceutical research and development, to impractical but grandiose UN-sponsored schemes for tackling HIV/AIDS and malaria.In spite of the abysmal track record of top-down approaches, non-governmental organizations and UN agencies continue to promote them, to the detriment of the private sector, economic development, and human health. The resulting politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. Meanwhile, cost-effective and simple interventions such as vaccination are being subordinated to other more politically correct diseases.This centralizing mindset has also resulted in many governments in less developed countries attempting to plan and control universal healthcare systems, which has encouraged rationing, inequitable access, and entrenched corruption. It has also seriously undermined the effectiveness of overseas development aid. Moreover, the politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. As a result, cost-effective and simple interventions are neglected by donors.There has to date been little public discussion of the role of markets and their underlying institutions--property rights and the rule of law--in improving human health. Economic growth and globalization has led to unprecedented improvements in human health. The challenge is to enable the poorest countries to take part more fully in this process. This work demonstrates how current

Public discussion of global healthcare issues is dominated by those who believe that top-down, government-driven interventions are the solution to the myriad health problems suffered by people in less developed countries. This thinking is responsible for a plethora of harmful policies, ranging from a drive towards socialized healthcare systems, to calls for the centralization and semi-nationalization of pharmaceutical research and development, to impractical but grandiose UN-sponsored schemes for tackling HIV/AIDS and malaria.In spite of the abysmal track record of top-down approaches, non-governmental organizations and UN agencies continue to promote them, to the detriment of the private sector, economic development, and human health. The resulting politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. Meanwhile, cost-effective and simple interventions such as vaccination are being subordinated to other more politically correct diseases.This centralizing mindset has also resulted in many governments in less developed countries attempting to plan and control universal healthcare systems, which has encouraged rationing, inequitable access, and entrenched corruption. It has also seriously undermined the effectiveness of overseas development aid. Moreover, the politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. As a result, cost-effective and simple interventions are neglected by donors.There has to date been little public discussion of the role of markets and their underlying institutions--property rights and the rule of law--in improving human health. Economic growth and globalization has led to unprecedented improvements in human health. The challenge is to enable the poorest countries to take part more fully in this process. This work demonstrates how current

Public discussion of global healthcare issues is dominated by those who believe that top-down, government-driven interventions are the solution to the myriad health problems suffered by people in less developed countries. This thinking is responsible for a plethora of harmful policies, ranging from a drive towards socialized healthcare systems, to calls for the centralization and semi-nationalization of pharmaceutical research and development, to impractical but grandiose UN-sponsored schemes for tackling HIV/AIDS and malaria.In spite of the abysmal track record of top-down approaches, non-governmental organizations and UN agencies continue to promote them, to the detriment of the private sector, economic development, and human health. The resulting politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. Meanwhile, cost-effective and simple interventions such as vaccination are being subordinated to other more politically correct diseases.This centralizing mindset has also resulted in many governments in less developed countries attempting to plan and control universal healthcare systems, which has encouraged rationing, inequitable access, and entrenched corruption. It has also seriously undermined the effectiveness of overseas development aid. Moreover, the politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. As a result, cost-effective and simple interventions are neglected by donors.There has to date been little public discussion of the role of markets and their underlying institutions--property rights and the rule of law--in improving human health. Economic growth and globalization has led to unprecedented improvements in human health. The challenge is to enable the poorest countries to take part more fully in this process. This work demonstrates how current thinking is flawed and proposes practical ways of improving health in lower income countries.

This is much more than just another book to add to the thousands on The Great War. It sets out to fill a gap. Written for the layman by a layman (who is also an articulate and experienced battlefield guide) it summarizes the key events and contributions of key individuals, some well, others unknown but with a story to tell.To get a true picture of this monumental event in history, it is necessary to grasp the fundamentals, be they military, political, social or simply human. The slaughters at Verdun, Somme and Passchendaele are no more than statistics without the stories of those that fought, drowned and died there.It is designed to capture the imagination and feed the mind of that ever increasing number of people who seek a better understanding of The Great War.

This is much more than just another book to add to the thousands on The Great War. It sets out to fill a gap. Written for the layman by a layman (who is also an articulate and experienced battlefield guide) it summarises the key events and contributions of key individuals, some well, others unknown but with a story to tell. To get a true picture of this monumental event in history, it is necessary to grasp the fundamentals, be they military, political, social or simply human. The slaughters at Verdun, Somme and Passchendaele are no more than statistics without the stories of those that fought, drowned and died there. It is designed to capture the imagination and feed the mind of those ever increasing number of people who seek a better understanding of The Great War.

Victor Hugo, France’s greatest poet and no mean novelist, orator and artist, came to Jersey in August 1852 as an exile, having been proscribed by Louis Napoleon. This book describes the daily lives of the Hugo family and the other refugees from France. This is the story of Hugo’s love for Jersey as well as a record of a very important period in its history. The text is illustrated with pioneering photographs by Charles Hugo and Auguste Vacquerie. Philip Stevens’ new edition will be widely welcomed, far beyond the shores of Jersey itself.

Public discussion of global healthcare issues is dominated by those who believe that top-down, government-driven interventions are the solution to the myriad health problems suffered by people in less developed countries. This thinking is responsible for a plethora of harmful policies, ranging from a drive towards socialized healthcare systems, to calls for the centralization and semi-nationalization of pharmaceutical research and development, to impractical but grandiose UN-sponsored schemes for tackling HIV/AIDS and malaria.In spite of the abysmal track record of top-down approaches, non-governmental organizations and UN agencies continue to promote them, to the detriment of the private sector, economic development, and human health. The resulting politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. Meanwhile, cost-effective and simple interventions such as vaccination are being subordinated to other more politically correct diseases.This centralizing mindset has also resulted in many governments in less developed countries attempting to plan and control universal healthcare systems, which has encouraged rationing, inequitable access, and entrenched corruption. It has also seriously undermined the effectiveness of overseas development aid. Moreover, the politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. As a result, cost-effective and simple interventions are neglected by donors.There has to date been little public discussion of the role of markets and their underlying institutions--property rights and the rule of law--in improving human health. Economic growth and globalization has led to unprecedented improvements in human health. The challenge is to enable the poorest countries to take part more fully in this process. This work demonstrates how current thinking is flawed and proposes practical ways of improving health in lower income countries.

Public discussion of global healthcare issues is dominated by those who believe that top-down, government-driven interventions are the solution to the myriad health problems suffered by people in less developed countries. This thinking is responsible for a plethora of harmful policies, ranging from a drive towards socialized healthcare systems, to calls for the centralization and semi-nationalization of pharmaceutical research and development, to impractical but grandiose UN-sponsored schemes for tackling HIV/AIDS and malaria.In spite of the abysmal track record of top-down approaches, non-governmental organizations and UN agencies continue to promote them, to the detriment of the private sector, economic development, and human health. The resulting politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. Meanwhile, cost-effective and simple interventions such as vaccination are being subordinated to other more politically correct diseases.This centralizing mindset has also resulted in many governments in less developed countries attempting to plan and control universal healthcare systems, which has encouraged rationing, inequitable access, and entrenched corruption. It has also seriously undermined the effectiveness of overseas development aid. Moreover, the politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. As a result, cost-effective and simple interventions are neglected by donors.There has to date been little public discussion of the role of markets and their underlying institutions--property rights and the rule of law--in improving human health. Economic growth and globalization has led to unprecedented improvements in human health. The challenge is to enable the poorest countries to take part more fully in this process. This work demonstrates how current

Public discussion of global healthcare issues is dominated by those who believe that top-down, government-driven interventions are the solution to the myriad health problems suffered by people in less developed countries. This thinking is responsible for a plethora of harmful policies, ranging from a drive towards socialized healthcare systems, to calls for the centralization and semi-nationalization of pharmaceutical research and development, to impractical but grandiose UN-sponsored schemes for tackling HIV/AIDS and malaria.In spite of the abysmal track record of top-down approaches, non-governmental organizations and UN agencies continue to promote them, to the detriment of the private sector, economic development, and human health. The resulting politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. Meanwhile, cost-effective and simple interventions such as vaccination are being subordinated to other more politically correct diseases.This centralizing mindset has also resulted in many governments in less developed countries attempting to plan and control universal healthcare systems, which has encouraged rationing, inequitable access, and entrenched corruption. It has also seriously undermined the effectiveness of overseas development aid. Moreover, the politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. As a result, cost-effective and simple interventions are neglected by donors.There has to date been little public discussion of the role of markets and their underlying institutions--property rights and the rule of law--in improving human health. Economic growth and globalization has led to unprecedented improvements in human health. The challenge is to enable the poorest countries to take part more fully in this process. This work demonstrates how current

Public discussion of global healthcare issues is dominated by those who believe that top-down, government-driven interventions are the solution to the myriad health problems suffered by people in less developed countries. This thinking is responsible for a plethora of harmful policies, ranging from a drive towards socialized healthcare systems, to calls for the centralization and semi-nationalization of pharmaceutical research and development, to impractical but grandiose UN-sponsored schemes for tackling HIV/AIDS and malaria.In spite of the abysmal track record of top-down approaches, non-governmental organizations and UN agencies continue to promote them, to the detriment of the private sector, economic development, and human health. The resulting politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. Meanwhile, cost-effective and simple interventions such as vaccination are being subordinated to other more politically correct diseases.This centralizing mindset has also resulted in many governments in less developed countries attempting to plan and control universal healthcare systems, which has encouraged rationing, inequitable access, and entrenched corruption. It has also seriously undermined the effectiveness of overseas development aid. Moreover, the politicization of diseases such as HIV/AIDS has led to a diversion of resources away from more easily treatable diseases that affect more people. As a result, cost-effective and simple interventions are neglected by donors.There has to date been little public discussion of the role of markets and their underlying institutions--property rights and the rule of law--in improving human health. Economic growth and globalization has led to unprecedented improvements in human health. The challenge is to enable the poorest countries to take part more fully in this process. This work demonstrates how current thinking is flawed and proposes practical ways of improving health in lower income countries.

This is much more than just another book to add to the thousands on The Great War. It sets out to fill a gap. Written for the layman by a layman (who is also an articulate and experienced battlefield guide) it summarizes the key events and contributions of key individuals, some well, others unknown but with a story to tell.To get a true picture of this monumental event in history, it is necessary to grasp the fundamentals, be they military, political, social or simply human. The slaughters at Verdun, Somme and Passchendaele are no more than statistics without the stories of those that fought, drowned and died there.It is designed to capture the imagination and feed the mind of that ever increasing number of people who seek a better understanding of The Great War.

This is much more than just another book to add to the thousands on The Great War. It sets out to fill a gap. Written for the layman by a layman (who is also an articulate and experienced battlefield guide) it summarises the key events and contributions of key individuals, some well, others unknown but with a story to tell. To get a true picture of this monumental event in history, it is necessary to grasp the fundamentals, be they military, political, social or simply human. The slaughters at Verdun, Somme and Passchendaele are no more than statistics without the stories of those that fought, drowned and died there. It is designed to capture the imagination and feed the mind of those ever increasing number of people who seek a better understanding of The Great War.

Victor Hugo, France’s greatest poet and no mean novelist, orator and artist, came to Jersey in August 1852 as an exile, having been proscribed by Louis Napoleon. This book describes the daily lives of the Hugo family and the other refugees from France. This is the story of Hugo’s love for Jersey as well as a record of a very important period in its history. The text is illustrated with pioneering photographs by Charles Hugo and Auguste Vacquerie. Philip Stevens’ new edition will be widely welcomed, far beyond the shores of Jersey itself.