Artigos de revistas sobre o tema "Mondragon's cooperative experience"

This article presents a case study of the rise and fall of the Mondragon cooperative Fagor Electrodomésticos (1959-2013). Fagor, after playing a key role in the creation of the Mondragon cooperative experience, had been transformed into a multinational corporation competing in the global home appliance market. Given Fagor’s role as a leading cooperative, the general question of the viability of workers’ cooperatives is also at stake in its failure.

The Mondragon Cooperative Experience has been one of the worker-owned alternative organizations that has received the most attention in the academic world. Despite its economic success, this experience has also been wrought with its own share of tensions and internal paradoxes. Surprisingly, the perspective of worker–member–owners in the analysis of those inconsistencies in Mondragon has been given very little prominence. Similarly, the equivalence between the formal policies defined in that experience and the day-to-day activity has been widely taken for granted in the literature. This article aims to fill this gap and contribute to the literature by analyzing the extent to which Mondragon’s basic cooperative principles are applied in the daily practice from the perspective of worker–member–owners. To that end, in-depth interviews were conducted with worker–member–owners of Mondragon outside their working environment. An interpretative analysis provides evidence of a decoupling of cooperative principles from the workers’ daily activity. Furthermore, a tacit and non-formal principle frequently surfaces in the interviews: the principle of the primacy of secure membership and guaranteed employment. This seems to be the most solid tie that binds members to their organization, in a context with growing individualization and precarious employment conditions, together with a ubiquitous managerial discourse that encourages shallow forms of workplace participation. This work contributes to the broader field of organizational theory and sheds light on the dissociation process in formal policies of organizations governed by alternative founding principles. It also tries to contribute to the study of the sustainability of such alternative organizations.

In 2009, United Steelworkers (USW) and Mondragon signed an agreement to promote union co-ops: firms that combine democratic worker ownership and union membership. Eleven U.S. initiatives now seek to implement the USW-Mondragon union co-op model, prompting a debate about whether unions and worker cooperatives are stronger together. This article draws on a case study of the first such initiative in Cincinnati, Ohio, to put claims about the model in dialogue with aspirations and experiences of people on the ground. I synthesize six possibilities and dilemmas of union involvement in worker cooperative formation and argue that these considerations should structure the future debate.

Around two thousand people come to Mondragon every year, from all over the world, to experience a unique business experience. Prestigious academics, management "gurus", social leaders from emerging countries, people linked to counter-cultural movements in Western countries share a certain admiration for the reality they observe and similar questions: What have been the keys to such a singular and spectacular success? Is it possible to replicate the Experience in other parts of the planet?

Purpose: In this paper, the authors analyse some of the aspects that contribute to the better performance of Mondragon Corporation compared to other cooperatives and to the rest of the companies in the Basque Country from a systemic perspective.Design/methodology/approach: First, a systematic review of the literature on the factors that could explain the higher competitiveness of Mondragon Cooperatives compared to the rest of firms has been performed. Then, a draft framework representing the existing relationship between the factors has been proposed by the authors. Then, a contrast with five experts with different perspectives of Mondragon Corporation has been made. Finally, the contributions of the experts to the proposal has allowed to obtain a final framework.Findings: A framework is proposed that links and hierarchises the factors and establishes precondition relationships between them. This framework gives a special role to the basic intercooperative agreement structure as a condition to develop intercompany synergies. Research limitations/implications: The article analyses a very specific case such as Mondragon Corporation and the testing of the framework has been made by a limited number of experts/This research adds a new perspective to a rich literature on the factors that explain Mondragon Cooperatives competitiveness.Practical implications: This article gives insights into the factors that should be considered when trying to replicate the experience of Mondragon Corporation in other socioeconomic contexts.Social Implications: This research stresses the relevance of a shared set of values as a base for the construction of strong synergetic relations between companies.Originality/value: The existing literature related to the key factors for Mondragon Cooperatives’ competitiveness analysed them from an individual factor perspective. This research advances in the knowledge to understand the systemic interrelationship between them.

This article examines how a single entrepreneur-owner of a heavy manufacturing firm in the United States has been influenced by the experience of the Mondragon cooperatives in Spain and the concept of servant leadership as articulated by Robert K. Greenleaf. The case that follows describes how this entrepreneur has attempted to not only sell his company to his employees at below market value but also to engage in a large scale training and development program so the employees may not only exercise ownership but also leadership and governance. His goal is to provide lifelong security and employment for the employees who made his company the success it is.

This study examines the historical development of corporate governance structures in First Nations communities in British Columbia, where development corporations are employed to assist privately-owned and community-owned entrepreneurial enterprises. First Nations entrepreneurial activity functions in an environment where business must market to a global economy while preserving traditional values, beliefs and other cultural elements. A brief history of First Nations and their enterprise development efforts is presented. Empirical research findings describe the close relationship between local community and corporate goals and identify conflicts of interest between political leaders and management of development corporations. The evidence demonstrates entrepreneurial success and economic development of First Nations communities rely on an independent decision-making process within business development corporations. An alternative business model is developed utilizing the empirical research, social enterprise literature and the unique regional cooperative model of the Mondragon region of Spain. The new model respects the land base and other environmental and social values while providing a framework for economic success. Exploration of this unique enterprise-to-region development model, which incorporates consideration for the natural environment and social and cultural values, offers lessons to other societies and regions that will assist in the movement toward an economic system based on concepts of sustainability.

This essay presents two case examples of the context and practices of industrial democracy: Norwegian industrial democracy exemplified with the Aker case and the Mondragon Cooperative Experience (a term Mondragon often uses to describe its whole structure and history). The comparison illustrates the necessity of combining general systems theory, the distinction between political and socio-technical participation, and the role of ethos, worldview, and heedfulness in understanding how these enterprises operate and manage ongoing challenges. Our central motive is to promote the expansion of organizational democracy within the global industrial system as a superior and more humane alternative to global neoliberal capitalism. These are not simple comparisons because these systems have different histories, contexts, and dynamics. In making the comparison, we show that the constant process of balancing and rebalancing political and socio-technical participation is a key dynamic in keeping such democratic systems viable. We also show that enterprise ethos and worldview, far from being an add-on or a “soft” dimension, is the bedrock on which such systems rely. After making this general presentation, we put these systems in motion to show how they address the challenges of downsizing and strategic planning. Downsizing and strategic planning show both systems’ ability to face unexpected events and effectively cope with their potential consequences. We conclude that the differences between the cases show there is no one right way to create democratic organizations, but that paths exist and remain open for many different versions of these more humane and successful industrial organizations so necessary for creating sustainable societies.

<p>本文首先介紹《社企是門好生意？社會企業的批判與反思》一書的重點內容。第1章介紹社會企業的發展路徑，及其源自新自由主義開始主導世界經濟與政治運作的背景。第2章與第3章的內容在於翻轉美化社會企業的主流論述並呈現可能帶來的隱憂。第4章到第8章則以臺灣和全球各地案例進一步探討社會弱勢者照顧與消除貧窮等議題。本書提醒我們，這些看來簡單美好並鼓吹以個人努力方式來解決問題的行動，潛藏著將社會問題去政治化、鼓勵國家退讓給市場、將公民形塑為消費者的思維邏輯，因此必須謹慎看待並深入思考它們如何面對結構性因素。本文最後提出蒙德拉貢合作社之案例與本書對話，並借鏡經濟多樣性觀點來思考商業營利與社會公平正義之間的關係。</p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>This paper first highlights the contents of the book &ldquo;Is Social Enterprise Good Business? Critical Thinking and Reflection.&rdquo; The first chapter shows the development path of social enterprise and its context of neoliberalism. The second and third chapters discuss a reverse view of mainstream discourses of social enterprise and overlooked problems. Cases of social care and eradicating poverty issues are discussed in Chapters 4 to 8. This book reminds us that behind those simple and good problem-solving projects based on individual effort, there might be hidden ideologies of the depoliticization of social problems, encouragement of giving room to the market, and transformation of citizens into consumers. Therefore, social entrepreneurship must be treated with caution, with measures to verify if it addresses structural challenges. Finally, this paper suggests the experiences of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation and the concept of diverse economies as another point of view to consider in the relationship between surplus creating and social justice.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

PurposeThis article analyses how the MONDRAGON Group has overcome the barriers that the literature identifies in the creation of employee owned companies (Mygind and Poulsen, 2021), and how it has managed to grow over the last few decades.Design/methodology/approachTo this end, based on an analysis of the legislative framework and the internal documentation of the MONDRAGON Group and its cooperatives, the case of what is often considered the most successful and highly developed network of co-operative firms is studied.FindingsThe study leads us to conclude that MONDRAGON has had sufficient capacity to overcome the barriers faced by worker-owned companies and has known how to adapt to the economic and social demands of each moment, despite the fact that at certain times it has had to act flexibly in its principles.Research limitations/implicationsThe work is limited to the analysis of the Group's internal documentation. It would be interesting to complement this vision with the perceptions of MONDRAGON's partners.Practical implicationsThe MONDRAGON Group's study can show other cooperative experiences what the keys to success are.Originality/valueMONDRAGON has been analysed from different perspectives, but how it has overcome the specific barriers presented by employee-owned companies has not been specifically studied. This perspective makes it possible to identify some of the group's success factors.

В данной статье анализируется деятельность крупнейшей бизнес-группы в Баскском регионе Испании – Корпорации MONDRAGON. Эта кооперативная группа сосредоточилась на своих корпоративных ценностях сотрудничества, участия, социальной ответственности и инноваций. Данные мирового кооперативного монитора свидетельствуют об огромном потенциале корпорации. Несмотря на кризисы в мировой экономике, MONDRAGON сохраняет первенство более десяти лет в рейтинге ТОП-10 «Промышленность и коммунальное хозяйство». Цель исследования – определить вклад корпорации в экономическое и социальное развитие. Задачи исследования: рассмотреть эффективность хозяйственной деятельности корпорации, ее бизнес-модель, гарантирующую прозрачное принятие решений, эффективное управление и подотчетность для всех участников, актуальность проблемы сохранения приверженности кооперативным ценностям, реализацию на практике целей устойчивого развития. В процессе исследования авторами использовались методы сбора данных, предусматривающие обработку, обобщение и интерпретацию полученных данных, аналитический, графический и табличный методы. На основании проведенного исследования сделаны выводы о вкладе корпорации MONDRAGON в экономическое и социальное развитие общества и возможности использования опыта работы корпорации в кооперативных организациях различных типов. This article analyzes the activities of the largest business group in the Basque region of Spain, the MONDRAGON Corporation. This cooperative group has focused on its corporate values of collaboration, participation, social responsibility and innovation. The data of the World Cooperative Monitor testify to the huge potential of the Corporation. Despite the crises in the global economy, MONDRAGON has retained its leadership for over 10 years in the TOP-10 Industry and Utilities rating. The purpose of the study is to determine the Corporation's contribution to economic and social development. Research objectives: to consider the efficiency of the Corporation's economic activities, its business model, which guarantees transparent decision-making, effective management and accountability for all participants, the relevance of the problem of maintaining commitment to cooperative values, and the practical implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. In the course of the study, the authors used data collection methods that include processing, summarizing and interpreting the data obtained, analytical, graphical and tabular methods. Based on the study, conclusions were drawn about the contribution of the MONDRAGON Corporation to the economic and social development of society and the possibility of using the experience of the Corporation in cooperative organizations of various types.

Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash ABSTRACT COVID-19 highlighted a disproportionate impact upon marginalized communities that needs to be addressed. Specifically, a focus on equity rather than equality would better address and prevent the disparities seen in COVID-19. A distributive justice framework can provide this great benefit but will succeed only if the medical community engages in outreach, anti-racism measures, and listens to communities in need. INTRODUCTION COVID-19 disproportionately impacted communities of color and lower socioeconomic status, sparking political discussion about existing inequities in the US.[1] Some states amended their guidelines for allocating resources, including vaccines, to provide care for marginalized communities experiencing these inequities, but there has been no clear consensus on which guidelines states should amend or how they should be ethically grounded. In part, this is because traditional justice theories do not acknowledge the deep-seated institutional and interpersonal discrimination embedded in our medical system. Therefore, a revamped distributive justice approach that accounts for these shortcomings is needed to guide healthcare decision-making now and into the post-COVID era. BACKGROUND Three terms – health disparity, health inequities, and health equity – help frame the issue. A health disparity is defined as any difference between populations in terms of disease incidence or adverse health events, such as morbidity or mortality. In contrast, health inequities are health disparities due to avoidable systematic structures rooted in racial, social, and economic injustice.[2] For example, current data demonstrate that Black, Latino, Indigenous Americans, and those living in poverty suffer higher morbidity and mortality rates from COVID-19.[3] Finally, health equity is the opportunity for anyone to attain his or her full health potential without interference from systematic structures and factors that generate health inequities, including race, socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or geography.[4] ANALYSIS Health inequities for people of color with COVID-19 have led to critiques of states that do not account for race in their resource allocation guidelines.[5] For example, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health revised its COVID-19 guidelines regarding resource allocation to patients with the best chance of short-term survival.[6] Critics have argued that this change addresses neither preexisting structural inequities nor provider bias that may have led to comorbidities and increased vulnerability to COVID-19. By failing to address race specifically, they argue the policy will perpetuate poorer outcomes in already marginalized groups. As the inequities in COVID-19 outcomes continue to be uncovered and the data continue to prove that marginalized communities suffered disproportionately, we, as healthcare providers, must reconsider our role in addressing the injustices. Our actions must be ethically grounded in the concept of justice. l. Primary Theories of Justice The principle of justice in medical ethics relates to how we ought to treat people and allocate resources. Multiple theories have emerged to explain how justice should be implemented, with three of the most prominent being egalitarianism, utilitarianism, and distributive. This paper argues that distributive justice is the best framework for remedying past actions and enacting systemic changes that may persistently prevent injustices. An egalitarian approach to justice states all individuals are equal and, therefore, should have identical access to resources. In the allocation of resources, an egalitarian approach would support a strict distribution of equal value regardless of one’s attributes or characteristics. Putting this theory into practice would place a premium on guidelines based upon first-come, first-served basis or random selection.[7] However, the egalitarian approach taken in the UK continues to worsen health inequities due to institutional and structural discrimination.[8] A utilitarian approach to justice emphasizes maximizing overall benefits and achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people. When resources are limited, the utilitarian principle historically guides decision-making. In contrast to the egalitarian focus on equal distribution, utilitarianism focuses on managing distributions to maximize numerical outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines for allocating resources had utilitarian goals like saving the most lives, which may prioritize the youthful and those deemed productive in society, followed by the elderly and the very ill. It is important to reconsider using utilitarian approaches as the default in the post-COVID healthcare community. These approaches fail to address past inequity, sacrificing the marginalized in their emphasis on the greatest amount of good rather than the type of good. Finally, a distributive approach to justice mandates resources should be allocated in a manner that does not infringe individual liberties to those with the greatest need. Proposed by John Rawls in a Theory of Justice, this approach requires accounting for societal inequality, a factor absent from egalitarianism and utilitarianism.[9] Naomi Zack elaborates how distributive justice can be applied to healthcare, outlining why racism is a social determinant of health that must be acknowledged and addressed.[10] Until there are parallel health opportunities and better alignment of outcomes among different social and racial groups, the underlying systemic social and economic variables that are driving the disparities must be fixed. As a society and as healthcare providers, we should be striving to address the factors that perpetuate health inequities. While genetics and other variables influence health, the data show proportionately more exposure, more cases, and more deaths in the Black American and Hispanic populations. Preexisting conditions and general health disparities are signs of health inequity that increased vulnerability. Distributive justice as a theoretical and applied framework can be applied to preventable conditions that increase vulnerability and can justify systemic changes to prevent further bias in the medical community. During a pandemic, egalitarian and utilitarian approaches to justice are prioritized by policymakers and health systems. Yet, as COVID-19 has demonstrated, they further perpetuate the death and morbidity of populations that face discrimination. These outcomes are due to policies and guidelines that overall benefit white communities over communities of color. Historically, US policy that looks to distribute resources equally (focusing on equal access instead of outcomes), in a color-blind manner, has further perpetuated poor outcomes for marginalized communities.[11] ll. Historical and Ongoing Disparities Across socio-demographic groups, the medical system exacerbates historical and current inequities. Members of marginalized races,[12] women,[13] LGBTQ people,[14] and poor people[15] experience trauma caused by discrimination, marginalization, and failure to access high-quality public and private goods. Through the unequal treatment of marginalized communities, these historic traumas continue. In the US, people of color do not receive equal and fair medical treatment. A meta-analysis found that Hispanics and Black Americans were significantly undertreated for pain compared to their white counterparts over the last 20 years.[16] This is partly due to provider bias. Through interviewing medical trainees, a study by the National Academy of Science found that half of medical students and residents harbored racist beliefs such as “Black people’s nerve endings are less sensitive than white people’s” or “Black people’s skin is thicker than white people’s skin.”[17] More than 3,000 Indigenous American women were coerced, threatened, and deliberately misinformed to ensure cooperation in forced sterilization.[18] Hispanic people have less support in seeking medical care, in receiving culturally appropriate care, and they suffer from the medical community’s lack of resources to address language barriers.[19] In the US, patients of different sexes do not receive the same quality of healthcare. Despite having greater health needs, middle-aged and older women are more likely to have fewer hospital stays and fewer physician visits compared to men of similar demographics and health risk profiles.[20] In the field of critical care, women are less likely to be admitted to the ICU, less likely to receive interventions such as mechanical ventilation, and more likely to die compared to their male ICU counterparts.[21] In the US, patients of different socioeconomic statuses do not receive the same quality of healthcare. Low-income patients are more likely to have higher rates of infant mortality, chronic disease, and a shorter life span.[22] This is partly due to the insurance-based discrimination in the medical community.[23] One in three deaths of those experiencing homelessness could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care. An individual experiencing homelessness has a life expectancy that is decades shorter than that of the average American.[24] lll. Action Needed: Policy Reform While steps need to be taken to provide equitable care in the current pandemic, including the allocation of vaccines, they may not address the historical failures of health policy, hospital policy, and clinical care to eliminate bias and ensure equal treatment of patients. According to an applied distributive justice framework, inequities must be corrected. Rather than focusing primarily on fair resource allocation, medicine must be actively anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-transphobic, and anti-discriminatory. Evidence has shown that the health inequities caused by COVID-19 are smaller in regions that have addressed racial wealth gaps through forms of reparations.[25] Distributive justice calls for making up for the past using tools of allocation as well as tools to remedy persistent problems. For example, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, MA, began “Healing ARC,” a pilot initiative that involves acknowledgement, redress, and closure on an institutional level.[26] Acknowledgement entails informing patients about disparities at the hospital, claiming responsibility, and incorporating community ideas for redress. Redress involves a preferential admission option for Black and Hispanic patients to specialty services, especially cardiovascular services, rather than general medicine. Closure requires that community and patient stakeholders work together to ensure that a new system is in place that will continue to prioritize equity. Of note, redress could take the form of cash transfers, discounted or free care, taxes on nonprofit hospitals that exclude patients of color,[27] or race-explicit protocol changes (such as those being instituted by Brigham and Women’s Hospital that admit patients historically denied access to certain forms of medical care). In New York, for instance, the New York State Bar Association drafted the COVID-19 resolutions to ensure that emergency regulations and guidelines do not discriminate against communities of color, and even mandate that diverse patient populations be included in clinical trials.[28] Also, physicians must listen to individuals from marginalized communities to identify needs and ensure that community members take part in decision-making. The solution is not to simply build new health centers in communities of color, as this may lead to tiers of care. Rather, local communities should have a chance to impact existing hospital policy and should also use their political participation to further their healthcare interests. Distributive justice does not seek to disenfranchise groups that hold power in the system. It aims to transform the system so that those in power do not continue to obtain unfair benefits at the expense of others. The framework accounts for unjust historical oppression and current injustices in our system to provide equitable outcomes to all who access the system. In this vein, we can begin to address the flagrant disparities between communities that have always – and continue to – exist in healthcare today.[29] CONCLUSION As equality focuses on access, it currently fails to do justice. Instead of outcomes, it is time to focus on equity. A focus on equity rather than equality would better address and prevent the disparities seen in COVID-19. A distributive justice framework can gain traction in clinical decision-making guidelines and system-level reallocation of resources but will succeed only if the medical community engages in outreach, anti-racism measures, and listens to communities in need. There should be an emphasis on implementing a distributive justice framework that treats all patients equitably, accounts for historical harm, and focuses on transparency in allocation and public health decision-making. [1] APM Research Lab Staff. 2020. “The Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19 Deaths by Race and Ethnicity in the U.S.” APM Research Lab. https://www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deaths-by-race. [2] Bharmal, N., K. P. Derose, M. Felician, and M. M. Weden. 2015. “Understanding the Upstream Social Determinants of Health.” California: RAND Corporation 1-18. https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1096.html. [3] Yancy, C. W. 2020. “COVID-19 and African Americans.” JAMA. 323 (19): 1891-2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6548; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. “COVID-19 in Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/racial-ethnic-disparities/index.html. [4] Braveman, P., E. Arkin, T. Orleans, D. Proctor, and A. Plough. 2017. “What is Health Equity?” Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2017/05/what-is-health-equity-.html. [5] Bedinger, M. 2020 Apr 22. “After Uproar, Mass. Revises Guidelines on Who Gets an ICU Bed or Ventilator Amid COVID-19 Surge.” Wbur. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/04/20/mass-guidelines-ventilator-covid-coronavirus; Wigglesworth, A. 2020 May 11. “Institutional Racism, Inequity Fuel High Minority Death Toll from Coronavirus, L.A. Officials Say.” Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-05-11/institutional-racism-inequity-high-minority-death-toll-coronavirus. [6] Executive Office of Health and Human Services Department of Public Health. 2020 Oct 20. “Crises Standards of Care Planning and Guidance for the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/doc/crisis-standards-of-care-planning-guidance-for-the-covid-19-pandemic. [7] Emanuel, E. J., G. Persad, R. Upshur, et al. 2020. “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine 382: 2049-55. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb2005114. [8] Salway, S., G. Mir, D. Turner, G. T. Ellison, L. Carter, and K. Gerrish. 2016. “Obstacles to "Race Equality" in the English National Health Service: Insights from the Healthcare Commissioning Arena.” Social Science and Medicine 152: 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.01.031. [9] Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition) (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999). [10] Zack, N. Applicative Justice: A Pragmatic Empirical Approach to Racial Injustice (New York: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, 2016). [11] Charatz-Litt, C. 1992. “A Chronicle of Racism: The Effects of the White Medical Community on Black Health.” Journal of the National Medical Association 84 (8): 717-25. http://hdl.handle.net/10822/857182. [12] Washington, H. A. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present (New York: Doubleday, 2006). [13] d'Oliveira, A. F., S. G. Diniz, and L. B. Schraiber. 2002. “Violence Against Women in Health-care Institutions: An Emerging Problem.” Lancet. 359 (9318): 1681-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08592-6. [14] Hafeez, H., M. Zeshan, M. A. Tahir, N. Jahan, and S. Naveed. 2017. “Health Care Disparities Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth: A Literature Review. Cureus 9 (4): e1184. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1184; Drescher, J., A. Schwartz, F. Casoy, et al. 2016. “The Growing Regulation of Conversion Therapy.” Journal of Medical Regulation 102 (2): 7-12. https://doi.org/10.30770/2572-1852-102.2.7; Stroumsa, D. 2014. “The State of Transgender Health Care: Policy, Law, and Medical Frameworks.” American Journal of Public Health. 104 (3): e31-8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301789. [15] Stepanikova, I., and G. R. Oates. 2017. “Perceived Discrimination and Privilege in Health Care: The Role of Socioeconomic Status and Race.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 52 (1s1): S86-s94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.09.024; Swartz, K. “Health Care for the Poor: For Whom, What Care, and Whose Responsibility?” In Cancian, M., and S. Danziger (Eds.). Changing Poverty, Changing Policies (New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press, 2009), 69-74. [16] Meghani, S. H., E. Byun, and R. M. Gallagher. 2012. “Time to Take Stock: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Analgesic Treatment Disparities for Pain in the United States.” Pain Medicine 13 (2): 150-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01310.x; Williams, D. R., and T. D. Rucker. 2000. “Understanding and Addressing Racial Disparities in Health Care.” Health Care Financing Review 21 (4): 75-90. https://scholar.harvard.edu/davidrwilliams/dwilliam/publications/understanding-and-addressing-racial-disparities-health. [17] Hoffman, K. M., S. Trawalter, J. R. Axt, and M. N. Oliver. 2016. “Racial Bias in Pain assessment and treatment recommendations, and false beliefs about biological Differences Between Blacks and Whites.” PNAS 113 (16): 4296-4301. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113. [18] Pacheco, C. M., S. M. Daley, T. Brown, M. Filipp, K. A. Greiner, and C. M. Daley. 2013. “Moving Forward: Breaking the Cycle of Mistrust Between American Indians and Researchers.” American Journal of Public Health. 103 (12): 2152-9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301480. [19] Velasco-Mondragon, E., A. Jimenez, A. G. Palladino-Davis, D. Davis, and J. A. Escamilla-Cejudo. 2016. “Hispanic Health in the USA: A Scoping Review of the Literature.” Public Health Reviews 37:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-016-0043-2. [20] Cameron, K. A., J. Song, L. M. Manheim, and D. D. Dunlop. 2010. “Gender Disparities in Health and Healthcare Use Among Older Adults.” Journal of Women’s Health (Larchmt) 19 (9): 1643-50. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1701. [21] Bierman, A. S. 2007. “Sex Matters: Gender Disparities in Quality and Outcomes of Care. Canadian Medical Association Journal 177 (12): 1520-1. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071541; Fowler, R. A., S. Sabur, P. Li, et al. 2007. “Sex-and Age-based Differences in the Delivery and Outcomes of Critical Care. Canadian Medical Association Journal 177 (12): 1513-9. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071112. [22] McLaughlin, D. K., and C. S. Stokes. 2002. “Income Inequality and Mortality in US Counties: Does Minority Racial Concentration Matter?” American Journal of Public Health 92 (1): 99-104. https://doi.org/.10.2105/ajph.92.1.99; Shea, S., J. Lima, A. Diez-Roux, N. W. Jorgensen, and R. L. McClelland. 2016. “Socioeconomic Status and Poor Health Outcome at 10 years of Follow-up in the Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.” PLoS One 11 (11): e0165651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165651. [23] Han, X., K. T. Call, J. K. Pintor, G. Alarcon-Espinoza, and A. B. Simon. 2015. “Reports of Insurance-based Discrimination in Health care and its Association with Access to Care.” American Journal of Public Health 105 Suppl 3 (Suppl 3): S517-25. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302668. [24] Aldridge, R. W., D. Menezes, D. Lewer, et al. 2019. “Causes of Death Among Homeless People: A Population-based Cross-sectional Study of Linked Hospitalization and Mortality Data in England.” Wellcome Open Research 4:49. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15151.1. [25] Richardson, E. T., M. M. Malik, W. A. Darity Jr., et al. 2021. “Reparations for Black American Descendants of Persons Enslaved in the U.S. and their Potential Impact on SARS-CoV-2 Transmission.” Social Science and Medicine 276: 113741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113741. [26] Wispelwey, B., and M. Morse. 2021. “An Antiracist Agenda for Medicine.” Boston Review. http://bostonreview.net/science-nature-race/bram-wispelwey-michelle-morse-antiracist-agenda-medicine. [27] Johnson, S. F., A. Ojo, and H. J. Warraich. 2021. “Academic Health Centers’ Antiracism Strategies Must Extend to their Business Practices.” Annals of Internal Medicine 174 (2): 254-5. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-6203; Golub, M., N. Calman, C. Ruddock, et al. 2011. “A Community Mobilizes to End Medical Apartheid.” Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 5 (3): 317-25. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2011.0041. [28] New York State Bar Association. 2020. “New York State Bar Association House of Delegates: Revised COVID-19 Resolutions.” https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2020/10/Final-Health-Law-Section-COVID-19-Resolutions_10-8-20-1-1.pdf. [29] Egede, L. E. 2006. “Race, Ethnicity, Culture, and Disparities in Health Care.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 21 (6): 667-669. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1525-1497.2006.0512.x