Rethinking the economics of capital mobility and capital controls

This paper reexamines the issue of international financial capital mobility, which is today's economic orthodoxy. Discussion is often framed in terms of the impossible trinity. That framing distorts discussion by representing capital mobility as having equal significance with sovereign monetary policy and control over exchange rates. It also distorts discussion by ignoring possibilities for coordinated monetary policy and exchange rates, and for managed capital flows. The case for capital mobility rests on neo-classical economic efficiency arguments and neo-liberal political arguments. The case against capital mobility is based on Keynesian macroeconomic inefficiency arguments, neo-Walrasian market failure arguments, and neo-Marxian arguments regarding distortion of the social structure of accumulation. Close examination shows the case for capital mobility to be extremely flimsy, pointing to the ideological dimension behind today's policy orthodoxy.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: a new century of malaria research

The global malaria situation has scarcely improved in the last 100 years, despite major advances in our knowledge of the basic biology, epidemiology and clinical basis of the disease. Effective malaria control, leading to a significant decrease in the morbidity and mortality attributable to malaria, will require a multidisciplinary approach. New tools - drugs, vaccine and insecticides - are needed but there is also much to be gained by better use of existing tools: using drugs in combination in order to slow the development of drug resistance; targeting resources to areas of greatest need; using geographic information systems to map the populations at risk and more sophisticated marketing techniques to distribute bed nets and insecticides. Sustainable malaria control may require the deployment of a highly effective vaccine, but there is much that can be done in the meantime to reduce the burden of disease.

Freedom of choice and bounded rationality: a brief appraisal of behavioral economists' plea for light paternalism

Behavioral economics has addressed interesting positive and normative questions underlying the standard rational choice theory. More recently, it suggests that, in a real world of boundedly rational agents, economists could help people to improve the quality of their choices without any harm to autonomy and freedom of choice. This paper aims to scrutinize available arguments for and against current proposals of light paternalistic interventions mainly in the domain of intertemporal choice. It argues that incorporating the notion of bounded rationality in economic analysis and empirical findings of cognitive biases and self-control problems cannot make an indisputable case for paternalism.