8 results
Conclusion
-
- By Finn Kydland, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science, Henley Professor of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA, Tom Schelling, Nobel Laureate in Economic Science, Nancy Stokey, Frederick Henry Prince Distinguished Service Professor in Economics, University of Chicago, Illinois, USA, Bjorn Lomborg, Prague, 2018
- Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
-
- Book:
- Prioritizing Development
- Published online:
- 30 May 2018
- Print publication:
- 07 June 2018, pp 501-507
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Over the next 15 years the Global Goal targets examined in the research section of this book will help to direct somewhere in the region of $2.5 trillion to be spent on development assistance, as well as countless trillions in national budgets. As the members of the Eminent Panel that examined the research and made recommendations on the proposed targets, particularly in terms of value-for-money, we believe that it is important that those making funding decisions have access to information on costs and benefits.
A natural political inclination is to promise all good things to everyone. This, in no small part, is how the United Nations ended up with 169 targets. All are well-intentioned.
However, the analyses presented in this book demonstrate that some of the targets are less worthwhile, producing only a little more than $1 in social benefits per dollar spent, while others produce much higher social returns. After careful consideration and engagement with the research authors, we selected the 19 targets that we expect to produce the greatest benefits.
The analyses suggest that if the United Nations (UN) concentrates on these top 19 targets, it could achieve $20 to $40 in social benefits per dollar spent. In contrast, allocating it evenly across all 169 targets would reduce the figure to less than $10.
Targets that will help people directly through health benefits are worth championing. As we read about in Chapter 13, tuberculosis (TB) is a “hidden” disease. More than two billion people carry the bacterium that causes it. About 10 percent of those people will develop TB at some point, and about 1.5 million people each year die from TB. But treatment is inexpensive and, in most cases, highly effective. Spending a dollar on diagnosis and treatment is a low-cost way to give many more years of productive life to many people. Ebola and Zika may receive the headlines, but TB is a much bigger problem, and one that we recommend receives high priority.
Reducing childhood malnutrition, described in Chapter 20, is another excellent target. A good diet allows children's brains and muscles to develop better, producing lifelong benefits. Wellnourished children stay in school longer, learn more, and end up being much more productive members of society. The available evidence suggests that providing better nutrition for 68 million children each year would produce over $40 in long-term social benefits for every dollar spent.
Expert Panel Ranking
-
- By Finn E. Kydland, University of California, Santa Barbara, Robert Mundell, Columbia University, New York, Thomas Schelling, University of Maryland, Vernon Smith, Chapman University School of Law, Nancy Stokey, University of Chicago
- Edited by Bjørn Lomborg
-
- Book:
- Global Problems, Smart Solutions
- Published online:
- 05 June 2014
- Print publication:
- 14 November 2013, pp 701-716
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
PART II - RANKING THE OPPORTUNITIES
- Edited by Bjørn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
-
- Book:
- Smart Solutions to Climate Change
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 09 September 2010, pp 379-380
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
9 - Expert Panel Ranking
- Edited by Bjørn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
-
- Book:
- Smart Solutions to Climate Change
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 09 September 2010, pp 381-394
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The Goal of the Project
The goal of the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate was to evaluate and rank feasible ways to reduce the adverse consequences from global warming.
Individual proposals that would achieve this were examined under the eight solution headings of: Climate Engineering, Carbon Cuts, Forestry, Black Carbon Cuts, Methane Cuts, Adaptation, Energy Technology, and Technology Transfers (TTs).
Ranking the Proposals
A Panel of economic experts, comprising five of the world's most distinguished economists, was invited to consider these proposals and identify the proposals where investments would be most effective. The members were: Jagdish N. Bhagwati of Columbia University, Finn E. Kydland of the University of California, Santa Barbara (Nobel Laureate), Thomas C. Schelling of the University of Maryland (Nobel Laureate), Vernon Smith of Chapman University (Nobel Laureate), and Nancy L. Stokey of the University of Chicago.
The Panel was asked to answer the question:
If the global community wants to spend up to, say, $250 billion per year over the next 10 years to diminish the adverse effects of climate changes, and to do the most good for the world, which solutions would yield the greatest net benefits?
The sum of up to $250 billion per year was chosen by the Copenhagen Consensus Center because it is in the order of magnitude of spending that world leaders could commit to in the Copenhagen COP 15 negotiations, and is consistent with the relevant economic literature on the expected costs of dealing with global warming.
Expert panel ranking
- Edited by Bjørn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
-
- Book:
- Global Crises, Global Solutions
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 09 July 2009, pp 657-679
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The Goal of the Project
The goal of Copenhagen Consensus 2008 project was to set priorities among a series of proposals for confronting ten great global challenges: Air pollution, Conflicts, Diseases, Education, Global Warming, Malnutrition and Hunger, Sanitation and Water, Subsidies and Trade Barriers, Terrorism, and Women and Development.
Ranking the Proposals
A Panel of economic experts, comprising eight of the world's most distinguished economists, was invited to consider these issues. The Panel members were: Jagdish N. Bhagwati of Columbia University, Franois Bourguignon of Paris School of Economics and former World Bank chief economist, Finn E. Kydland of University of California, Santa Barbara (Nobel laureate), Robert Mundell of Columbia University in New York (Nobel laureate), Douglass C. North of Washington University in St. Louis (Nobel laureate), Thomas C. Schelling of University of Maryland (Nobel laureate), Vernon L. Smith of Chapman University (Nobel laureate), and Nancy L. Stokey of University of Chicago.
The Panel was asked to address the ten challenge areas and to answer the question: “What would be the best ways of advancing global welfare, and particularly the welfare of the developing countries, illustrated by supposing that an additional $75 billion of resources were at their disposal over a four-year initial period?”
Ten Challenge papers, commissioned from acknowledged authorities in each area of policy (chapters 1–10 in this volume), set out more than thirty proposals for the Panel's consideration. During the week-long conference, the Panel examined these proposals in detail.
Expert Panel Ranking
- Edited by Bjørn Lomborg, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
-
- Book:
- Global Crises, Global Solutions
- Published online:
- 22 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 25 October 2004, pp 605-644
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The Goal of the Project
The goal of the Copenhagen Consensus project was to set priorities among a series of proposals for confronting ten great global challenges. These challenges, selected from a wider set of issues identified by the United Nations, were: climate change; communicable diseases; conflicts and arms proliferation; access to education; financial instability; governance and corruption; malnutrition and hunger; migration; sanitation and access to clean water; and subsidies and trade barriers.
A panel of economic experts, comprising eight of the world's most distinguished economists, was invited to consider these issues. The members were Jagdish N. Bhagwati of Columbia University, Robert S. Fogel of the University of Chicago (Nobel Laureate), Bruno S. Frey of the University of Zurich, Justin Yifu Lin of Peking University, Douglass C. North of Washington University in St Louis (Nobel Laureate), Thomas Schelling of the University of Maryland, Vernon L. Smith of George Mason University (Nobel Laureate) and Nancy Stokey of the University of Chicago.
The panel was asked to address the ten challenge areas and to answer the question: ‘What would be the best ways of advancing global welfare, and particularly the welfare of developing countries, supposing that an additional $50 bn of resources were at governments' disposal?' Ten challenge papers (chapters 1–10 in this volume), commissioned from acknowledged authorities in each area of policy, set out more than thirty proposals for the panel's consideration. During the conference, the panel examined these proposals in detail.
13 - Shirtsleeves to Shirtsleeves: The Economics of Social Mobility (1996)
- Edited by Donald P. Jacobs, Northwestern University, Illinois, Ehud Kalai, Northwestern University, Illinois, Morton I. Kamien, Northwestern University, Illinois, Nancy L. Schwartz
-
- Book:
- Frontiers of Research in Economic Theory
- Published online:
- 05 January 2013
- Print publication:
- 13 November 1998, pp 210-241
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
It is an honor to be here today to give this lecture, for several reasons. First, the speakers who have preceded me in this lecture series form a very distinguished group, and it is an honor to join them. Second, Northwestern University is where I began my career. It was a wonderful environment for me and I have many fond memories, so it is nice to be back. And finally, Nancy Schwartz, in addition to being an outstanding scholar, was a kind and generous friend to me when I first arrived at Northwestern, and I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to her.
INTRODUCTION
My topic today is intergenerational mobility, and I want to begin with a brief discussion of why I think it is an important issue. I will discuss three reasons: one that is moral or philosophical and two that are pragmatic and policy oriented.
First the philosophical question. We are all brought up with the notion that the United States is a land of equal opportunity. Now the fact that we talk about equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes means that we are willing to accept at least some inequality. In fact, as a society we are evidently willing to accept a substantial degree of economic inequality. In part this is because we believe economic incentives are needed to induce people to expend effort.
3 - The dynamics of industrywide learning
-
- By Nancy L. Stokey, Northwestern University
- Edited by Walter P. Heller, University of California, San Diego, Ross M. Starr, University of California, San Diego, David A. Starrett, Stanford University, California
-
- Book:
- Essays in Honor of Kenneth J. Arrow
- Published online:
- 25 October 2011
- Print publication:
- 25 July 1986, pp 81-104
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing,” Professor Arrow (1962) emphasizes that inefficiencies arise if doing generates external effects on the learning of others. That such externalities are pervasive seems obvious. Communication between individuals takes place through the usual channels, and communication between firms occurs when individuals move from one firm to another, or when learning by one firm is transferred to the supplier of a capital good and then embodied in the equipment purchased by another.
In the presence of externalities in learning, inefficiencies arise because for each firm the private benefits of experience are less than the social benefits, leading to underproduction even with perfectly competitive markets. This is why subsidies to “infant” industries may be called for. In fact, the free-rider problem is more severe the greater the number of firms, so there is no presumption that entry is socially beneficial – even with constant returns to scale in production and no cost of entry. Thus, second best policies may include those – like patents – that restrict entry.
The analysis of any such policies requires an understanding of how firms compete in industries where learning occurs. A model of such competition, based on the framework of differential games, is studied below.
The dynamics of a single industry are examined under the assumption that spillovers in learning are complete, that is, that learning is industry-wide.
![](/core/cambridge-core/public/images/lazy-loader.gif)