Recent years have seen calls for the private sector to become more involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Business has valuable skills and other resources that could assist government and civil society efforts, and some firms (although by no means all) also have strong reasons for involvement. HIV/AIDS hits hardest the working-age individuals who make up the bulk of the private sector’s workforce and consumer base. As well as a moral case for action, deflecting the virus's impacts on employees and economies can avert business costs and strengthen corporate reputations. This article presents some of the key arguments for business action on HIV/AIDS and provides examples of where business has less reason to be concerned about the impact of the epidemic in specific situations. It also outlines findings from the World Economic Forum's 2006 Executive Opinion Survey, which polls the views of over 11,000 business leaders in 125 countries. It finds a small proportion of firms reporting that the virus is seriously affecting their operations, with the greatest effects felt in Sub-Saharan Africa. A much larger proportion of firms believe the virus will affect them in the next five years. Despite this growing worldwide concern, it is primarily companies in the hardest-hit countries that have developed policies to cope with the threat. It is noteworthy that most firms are basing their action or inaction on a subjective perception of the risk posed by HIV/AIDS, rather than on a formal risk assessment.

The arguments in favor of education rest on various premises: legal and humanitarian—that children are entitled to an education as a basic human right; economic—that countries will advance faster when people are educated; social and political-that education is essential for building cohesive, equitable, democratic societies; and moral-that devoting resources to education is the “right” thing to do. For decades, countries have worked together in an attempt to ensure that all children get an education, particularly primary education. Falling short, these efforts have been repeatedly renewed. Although enrollment ratios have increased in all developing regions, several regions are likely to fall short of the 2015 goal of universal primary completion. Gender disparities remain high in some regions. Several developing regions are particularly far behind developed ones in secondary and tertiary enrollment, and although enrollment at these levels has been increasing, international efforts have not focused on this. Globalization has offered the biggest rewards to countries that have emphasized education and made improvements at these levels, and it has most benefited individuals who have gained higher-level skills through quality education. In many developing countries, however, the quality of education is low, a fact that has received insufficient attention. Greater investment in education will be needed, but better use of educational funds is also important.

Despite advances during the twentieth century, immunization coverage is far from universal and faces significant obstacles in both developing and developed countries. Weak policy emphasis on vaccination may be the result of the narrow view of its benefits in scientific and policy-making communities, which focus mainly on the averted costs of medical treatment. An investigation of the broader impacts of immunization shows that the benefits of vaccine programs—in particular, their economic effects via improved health—have been underestimated, thereby causing the rate of return to be underestimated.

In recent years there has been a surge of interest in governance: good governance increasingly is seen as a vital adjunct to successful development efforts. This paper attempts to explain what governance is and why it is important, and assess which forms of governance are likely to best support and promote economic development. Although economies with very different governance arrangements have performed strongly in recent decades, a focus on governance is likely to bring out some commonalities that may be helpful for 21st century policy-makers.

Among Africa’s problems, chronic poverty and poor health stand out. Traditional development thinking has maintained that health improvements are a consequence of income growth. But new evidence shows that investing in health, with the aid of the international community, could make a big difference in Africa’s economic prospects. Moreover, some feasible, low-cost interventions would likely have high returns. The pathways by which health can make a difference economically include those based on the heightened effectiveness of labor, increased savings, more effective educational investments, and demographic change.

Falling mortality rates spurred by medical, nutritional and lifestyle changes have spurred a ‘demographic transition’ in a majority of the world’s countries. As couples realize their children are more likely to survive, they need, and eventually have, fewer of them to attain their desired family size. In addition, desired fertility tends to decline as earnings opportunities improve since forgone income is such a large portion of the cost of childrearing. In the lag between mortality and fertility declines, a ‘boom’ generation is created, which is larger than both preceding and successor cohorts. As this boom generation reaches working age, the combination of a greater supply of workers and fewer dependents to support gives countries the opportunity to collect a ‘demographic dividend’. If an appropriate policy environment is in place for making the most of this opportunity, the economic benefits can be, and in many cases have been, great.