The article distinguishes three categories of hope: private, collective, and public. Public hope is hope that is invoked by political actors in relation to a societal goal of some kind. The article argues that public hope is the most dangerous kind of hope. The argument is developed using the recent history of trade negotiations between the United States and developing countries concerning intellectual property rights as they relate to life-saving medicines for AIDS. Public hope may allow political actors to harness emotionally collectivities to economic and social agendas that are poorly understood by those collectivities and that are ultimately destructive of the social institutions upon which actual private and collective hopes depend. Or public hope may be secret hope that drives policies that escape public notice until it is too late. The final section of the article identifies four principles that help to make public hope a contingent force for the good.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
2.
Bar-Tal, Daniel. 2001. Why does fear override hope in societies engulfed by intractable conflict, as it does in the Israeli society? Political Psychology22:601-627.
3.
Bovens, Luc. 1999. The value of hope. Philosophy and Phenomenological ResearchLIX:667-681.
4.
Braithwaite, John. 1984. Corporate crime in the pharmaceutical industry. London: Routledge.
5.
Braithwaite, John. 2002. Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
Braithwaite, John, and Peter Drahos. 2000. Global business regulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Programme for Action. 2001. Accelerated action on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis in the context of poverty reduction (COM 95).
8.
Dauenhauer, Bernard P. 1984. Hope and its ramifications for politics. Man and World17:453-476.
9.
Drahos, Peter. 2001. BITs and BIPs: Bilateralism in intellectual property. The Journal of World Intellectual Property4:791-808.
10.
Drahos, Peter. 2002. Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy? With John Braithwaite. London: Earthscan.
11.
Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Gellman, Barton. 2000. A turning point that left millions behind. Washington Post, December 28, p. A1.
13.
Gillham, Jane E., ed. 2000. The science of optimism and hope. London: Templeton Foundation Press.
14.
Havel, Václav. 1990. Letters to Olga. Trans. Paul Wilson. Boston: Faber and Faber.
15.
Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee. 2000. Review of intellectual property legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement, Final Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
16.
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations. 1998. The question of patents: The key to medical progress and industrial development. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
17.
Kettler, Hannah E., and Rajiv Modi. 2001. Building local research and development capacity for the prevention and cure of neglected diseases: The case of India. Bulletin of the World Health Organization79 (8): 742-747.
18.
Maskus, Keith E. 2000. Intellectual property rights and economic development. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law32:471-506.
19.
Massey, Douglas S. 2002. A brief history of human society: The origin and role of emotion in social life. American Sociological Review67:1-29.
20.
Maxwell, Robert A., and Shohreh B. Eckhardt. 1990. Drug discovery: A casebook and analysis. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.
21.
Médecins Sans Frontières Access to Essential Medicines Campaign and the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group. 2001. Fatal imbalance: The crisis in research and development for drugs for neglected diseases. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
22.
Moltmann, Jürgen. 1971. Hope and planning. Trans. Margaret Clarkson. New York: Harper & Row.
23.
Murray, Tracy. 1977. Trade preferences for developing countries. London: Macmillan.
24.
Myrdal, Gunnar. 1968. Asian drama: An inquiry into the poverty of nations, vol. 3. New York: Penguin.
25.
Narayan, Deepa. 2000. Voices of the poor: Can anyone hear us? With Raj Patel, Kai Schafft, Anne Rademacher, and Sarah Koch-Schulte. New York: Oxford University Press/World Bank.
26.
O’Shaughnessy, John, and Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy. 2002. The marketing power of emotion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
Penrose, Edith. 1951. The economics of the international patent system. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
Raghavan, Chakravarthi. 1989. India yields in Uruguay Round. Mainsteam6:15-25.
29.
Santoro, Michael A. 1992. Pfizer: Protecting intellectual property in a global marketplace. Boston: Harvard Business School.
30.
Sell, Susan K. 1995. Intellectual property protection and antitrust in the developing world: Crisis, coercion, and choice. International Organization49:315-349.
31.
Sell, Susan K. 2002. TRIPS and the access to medicines campaign. Wisconsin International Law Journal20:481-522.
32.
Snyder, C. R. 2000. The hope mandala: Coping with the loss of a loved one. In The Science of Optimism and Hope, edited by Jane E. Gillham. London: Templeton Foundation Press.
33.
Staats, Sara, and Christie Partlo. 1993. A brief report on hope in peace and war and in good times and bad. Social Indicators Research29:229-243.
34.
U.K. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. 2002. Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy. London: Author.
35.
U.S. Department of State. 1999. U.S. government efforts to negotiate the repeal, termination or withdrawal of Article 15(c) of the South African Medicines and Related Substances Act of 1965, 20520, February 5. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
Vedaraman, S. 1972. The new Indian Patents Law. International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law3:39-54.
37.
World Bank. 2002. Global economic prospects and the developing countries. Washington, DC: Author.
