Explore the vast range of titles available.

This forum contribution explores the strengths and limits of Noam Yuran’s innovative call for a new political economy of sex and desire. It has three prongs. First, I discuss Yuran’s compelling focus on the curious durability of monogamy as an institution. Second, I examine his analysis of thinkers such as Mandeville and Weber. Finally, I turn to the question of love. I suggest that Yuran’s approach opens a pathway to a more loving and more realistic political economy of intimacy and familial love, one that I suggest is missing in much critical theory today, particularly in the rhetoric of family abolitionists.

Over the past decade a new form of philanthropy has emerged, termed 'philanthrocapitalism'. Champions of philanthrocapitalism suggest that private giving can fill the void left by diminished government spending on social and development programmes. Critics suggest that philanthropy is no substitute for strong governmental support for social welfare. Both arguments perpetuate a dichotomy between the public and the private, implying that philanthrocapitalism operates in a vacuum largely divorced from governmental interventions. In this article I challenge that assumption, exploring how new philanthropic initiatives have compelled increased financial support from governments toward the private sector. Drawing on three cases - advanced market commitments (amcs) in drug development; impact investing; and direct philanthropic and governmental grants to corporate entities - I illustrate the ways that governments remain one of the most powerful - if not the most powerful - philanthropic actors in the philanthrocapitalist turn.

Iqani et al discuss a roundtable discussion about how evidence is produced in different academic disciplines and how it intersects with power. The conversation focuses on how different disciplines define and use evidence. For instance, psychiatry emphasizes systematic methodologies and hypothesis testing, while sociology explores how evidence is produced and used for political ends. There's a tension between quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data (like large datasets) is often seen as more objective, but it might not capture the complexities of lived experiences. Qualitative data (like interviews) can provide richer details but might be subjective. Researchers from low- and middle-income countries often struggle to get funding and have their work published in high-impact journals dominated by Western researchers. The conversation acknowledges the limitations of speaking truth to power. Powerful actors might not be swayed by evidence, and achieving change might require compromise and optimistic language.

The beast of ignorance has been clawing at its cage, demanding more attention. For over 150 years, the social sciences have treated the problem of ignorance production as secondary to the problem of knowledge production. Ignorance has been sneered at like an uninvited guest at a high table, dismissed as an inferior, low-status cousin of knowledge. Recently, a few diners at the table have taken more notice of ignorance. As if sensing an animal sleeping by their feet, they have lifted the tablecloth and gasped. Ignorance has a pulse; ignorance breathes. Ignorance is far more dynamic and more strategic than expected. No wonder people guard their own ignorance: it strikes people as exactly the sort of dangerous animal that should be contained.

The popularity of Thomas Piketty's research on wealth inequality has drawn attention to a curious question: why was widening wealth inequality largely neglected by mainstream economists in recent decades? To explore and explain that neglect, I draw on the writing of the early neoclassical economist John Bates Clark, who introduced the notion of the marginal productivity of income distribution at the end of the nineteenth century. I then turn to Piketty's Capital in order to analyze the salience of marginal productivity theories of income today. I suggest that most of the criticism and praise for Piketty's research is focused on data that are accessible and measurable, obscuring attention to questions over whether current methods for measuring economic capital are defensible or not. My overarching aim is to explore how \"absent\" data in economics as a whole help to reinforce blind spots within mainstream economic theory.

Aside from the unlikelihood of $3 billion being enough to manage all disease, there are at least three reasons why the global health community should pay more critical attention to the potentially adverse effects of philanthrocapitalism.

Over the past decade a new form of philanthropy has emerged, termed 'philanthrocapitalism'. Champions of philanthrocapitalism suggest that private giving can fill the void left by diminished government spending on social and development programmes. Critics suggest that philanthropy is no substitute for strong governmental support for social welfare. Both arguments perpetuate a dichotomy between the public and the private, implying that philanthrocapitalism operates in a vacuum largely divorced from governmental interventions. In this article I challenge that assumption, exploring how new philanthropic initiatives have compelled increased financial support from governments toward the private sector. Drawing on three cases - advanced market commitments (amcs) in drug development; impact investing; and direct philanthropic and governmental grants to corporate entities - I illustrate the ways that governments remain one of the most powerful - if not the most powerful - philanthropic actors in the philanthrocapitalist turn. Reprinted by permission of Carfax Publishing, Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Interdisciplinary conversations about how knowledge is produced are significant in that they allow for reflection and exchange between the 'silos' of academic institutions. This Structured Conversation explores some of the complexities that are attendant to generating and analysing data, and how data are then entered into relationships of authority and resistance. 

As a result of the growth of evidence-based practices across the world, health-care providers and policymakers in the United States, United Kingdom, and Europe have established institutes such as the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to produce clinical guidelines that physicians are asked to use in their daily practice. This article discusses how the withholding of clinical trial information by pharmaceutical companies and academic researchers affects the reliability of clinical guidelines. It first offers a case study analysis of the U.K. drug regulator’s failure to prosecute GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of the bestselling antidepressant Seroxat (manufactured as Paxil in North America), for withholding information on the safety of Seroxat from regulators. It next examines the idea of a “Sarbanes- Oxley for Science,” a recent proposal that seeks to introduce legislation forcing companies to disclose clinical trials that have indeterminate or negative results. Legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley for Science would solve some problems with the withholding of data, but not all. Until practitioners and policymakers address the political and legal barriers preventing full access to clinical trial data for all medical treatments, the ideals of evidence-based practice will remain elusive.