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.
1 - The Welfare Cost of Inflation in the Presence of Inside Money
- Edited by David E. Altig, Ed Nosal
-
- Book:
- Monetary Policy in Low-Inflation Economies
- Published online:
- 26 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 31 July 2009, pp 1-20
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In this paper, we ask what role an endogenous money multiplier plays in the estimated welfare cost of inflation. The model is a variant of that used by Freeman and Kydland (2000) with inside and outside money in the spirit of Freeman and Huffman (1991). Unlike models in which the money–output link comes from either sticky prices or fixed money holdings, here prices and output are assumed to be fully flexible. Consumption goods are purchased using either currency or bank deposits. Two transaction costs affect these decisions: One is the cost of acquiring money balances, which is necessary to determine the demand for money and to make the velocity of money endogenous. The other is a fixed cost associated with using deposits. This cost is instrumental in determining the division of money balances into currency and interest-bearing deposits. Faced with these two costs and factors that may vary over time in equilibrium (such as over the business cycle), households make decisions that, in the aggregate, determine the velocity of money and the money multiplier.
The model is consistent with several features of U.S. data: (1) M1 is positively correlated with real output; (2) the money multiplier and deposit-to-currency ratio are positively correlated with output; (3) the price level is negatively correlated with output in spite of conditions (1) and (2); (4) the correlation of M1 with contemporaneous prices is substantially weaker than the correlation of M1 with real output; (5) correlations among real variables are essentially unchanged under different monetary policy regimes; and (6) real money balances are smoother than money-demand equations would predict.
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.
7 - The Gold Standard as a Commitment Mechanism
- Michael D. Bordo, Rutgers University, New Jersey
-
- Book:
- The Gold Standard and Related Regimes
- Published online:
- 19 October 2009
- Print publication:
- 13 May 1999, pp 195-237
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The gold standard has been a subject of perennial interest to both economists and economic historians. Attention has focused on three aspects of the gold standard's performance: as an international exchange rate arrangement; as a provider of macroeconomic stability; and as a constraint on government policy actions.
The balance of payments adjustment mechanism, or the link between the money supplies, price levels, and real outputs of different countries under fixed exchange rates, has long been studied as the key aspect of the international exchange rate arrangement of the gold standard. The durability of fixed exchange rates, the absence of exchange market crises, and the smooth adjustment to the massive transfers of capital in the decades before 1914 have been features stressed in monetary reform proposals ever since.
The gold standard has often been viewed as ensuring long-run, though not necessarily short-run, price stability via the operation of the classical commodity theory of money. Recent comparisons between the classical gold standard and subsequent managed fiduciary monetary regimes suggest, however, that the record is mixed with respect to both price level and real output performance.
Finally, the gold standard has also been viewed as a form of constraint over monetary policy actions – as a form of monetary rule. The Currency School in England in the early 19th century made the case for the Bank of England's fiduciary note issue to vary automatically with the level of the Bank's gold reserve (“the currency principle”).
3 - The gold standard as a commitment mechanism
-
- By Michael D. Bordo, Rutgers University, Finn E. Kydland, Carnegie Mellon University
- Edited by Tamim Bayoumi, International Monetary Fund Institute, Washington DC, Barry Eichengreen, University of California, Berkeley, Mark P. Taylor, University of Liverpool
-
- Book:
- Modern Perspectives on the Gold Standard
- Published online:
- 05 November 2011
- Print publication:
- 16 January 1997, pp 55-100
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The gold standard has been a subject of perennial interest to both economists and economic historians. Attention has focused on three aspects of the gold standard's performance: as an international exchange rate arrangement; as a provider of macroeconomic stability; and as a constraint on government policy actions.
The balance of payments adjustment mechanism, or the links between the money supplies, price levels, and real outputs of different countries under fixed exchange rates, has long been studied as the key aspect of the international exchange rate arrangement of the gold standard. The durability of fixed exchange rates, the absence of exchange market crises, and the smooth adjustment to the massive transfers of capital in the decades before 1914 have been features stressed in monetary reform proposals ever since.
The gold standard has often been viewed as ensuring long-run, though not necessarily short-run, price stability via the operation of the Classical commodity theory of money. Recent comparisons between the classical gold standard and subsequent managed fiduciary monetary regimes suggest, however, that the record is mixed with respect both to price level and real output performance.
Finally, the gold standard has also been viewed as a form of constraint over monetary policy actions – as a form of monetary rule. The Currency School in England in the early 19th century made the case for the Bank of England's fiduciary note issue to vary automatically with the level of the Bank's gold reserve (“the currency principle”).