Search results

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- Foreword -- Preface -- 1. Basic Concepts -- 1.1. What is a health disparity? -- 1.2. A brief historical perspective -- 1.3. Some examples -- 1.4. Determinants of health -- 1.4.1. Biology and genetics -- 1.4.2. Individual behavior -- 1.4.3. Health services -- 1.4.4. Social determinants of health -- 1.4.5. (Health) policies -- 1.5. The challenging issue of race -- 1.5.1. Racial segregation as a social determinant of health -- 1.5.2. Racism, segregation, and inequality -- 1.6. Role of data visualization in health disparities research -- 1.7. A note on notation adopted in this book -- 2. Overall Estimation of Health Disparities -- 2.1. Data and measurement -- 2.2. Disparity indices -- 2.2.1. Total disparity indices -- 2.2.2. Disparity indices measuring differences between groups -- 2.2.3. Disparity indices from complex surveys -- 2.3. Randomized experiments: an idealized estimate of disparity -- 2.4. Model-based estimation: adjusting for confounders -- 2.4.1. Regression approach -- 2.4.1.1. Model-assisted survey regression -- 2.4.2. Peters-Belson approach -- 2.4.2.1. Peters-Belson approach for complex survey data -- 2.4.2.2. Peters-Belson approach for clustered data -- 2.4.3. Disparity drivers -- 2.4.3.1. Disparity drivers for complex survey data -- 2.5. Matching and propensity scoring -- 2.6. Discrete outcomes -- 2.6.1. Binary outcomes -- 2.6.2. Nominal and ordinal outcomes -- 2.6.3. Poisson regression and log-linear models -- 2.7. Survival analysis -- 2.7.1. Survivor and hazard functions -- 2.7.2. Common parametric models -- 2.7.3. Estimation -- 2.7.4. Inference -- 2.7.5. Non-parametric estimation of S(y) -- 2.7.6. Cox proportional hazards model -- 2.8. Multi-level modeling -- 2.8.1. Estimation and inference -- 2.9. Generalized estimating equations.

Is free labour under capitalism a contradiction in terms? Two aspects of this long-debated question are considered. One is the divide between the libertarian insistence on individual freedom and the socialist contention of proletarian class unfreedom. Is there a viewpoint free of judgments or valuations as to what is or is not interesting or valuable about any given view of freedom? We argue that the Rawlsian original position defines a value-free benchmark of maximal freedom from which the degree of unfreedom under any set of social rules can be assessed. While negative individual freedom and class unfreedom are not incompatible, 'free labour under capitalism' has got to be a contradiction in terms. But capitalism classically defined is production by doubly 'free' labour which sharply distinguishes it from forms of 'unfree' labour that constitute its pre-history. This raises both conceptual and substantive empirical questions defining the second divide we consider, between Marx's view linking capitalism and free labour and its detractors. Our contention is that keeping capitalism and unfree labour properly apart is a practical imperative of the continued use of these historically fruitful categories even if, as a corollary, 'unfree labour under capitalism' must seem a contradiction in terms.

Argues that equity must be at the core of a framework for international cooperation. Suggests that the potential value of equity may be considered at 3 different levels: equity and justice promote cooperative behaviour, itself needed for the provision of public goods; when the system is perceived to be fair and equitable, nations will participate in it willingly; globally equity is itself a public good that, without cooperation or coercion, may be under-supplied. (Original abstract - amended)

The liberal tradition assumes that some combination of international cooperation & coercion to produce global public goods is possible, even on the basis of self-interest alone. Here, it is argued that equity must be at the core of a framework for international cooperation. The potential value of equity may be considered at three different levels. (1) Equity & justice promote cooperative behavior, itself needed for the provision of public goods. Although social cohesion may not be an absolute precondition in the supply of public goods, its value lies in making cooperation easier & giving global rules greater legitimacy & sustainability. (2) When the system is perceived to be fair & equitable, nations will participate in it willingly; otherwise, their contributions individually & collectively will tend to be insufficient to make the system work well, or at all. (3) Global equity is itself a public good that, without cooperation or coercion, may be undersupplied. 11 References. Adapted from the source document.