I think this discussion would benefit by being related to very relevant
concrete political events, i.e., the appointment of John Graham, director of
the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, to deputy director (or some such
title) of the Office of Management and Budget for regulatory affairs.
By all accounts Graham is a sincere practitioner of CBA and CEA. Yet, at
the same time the Harvard Center has received lots of specific corporate
money and it is hard to beleive this has not influenced the agenda of the
center under Graham. For example, the Center, under corporate sponsorship
had what looked to me like a very one-side conference criticizing the
"precautionary principle." One of Graham's star students also did a review
of 500 cost-effectiveness analyses concluding that the mean cost
effectiveness was much more favorable for specific, technology laden health
care interventions than for broader regulatory measures. Never mentioned in
this review is a severe publication bias that haunts this literature. CEA
and CBA of regulations are commissioned by the effected industries who do
everything they can to under-value the benefits and over-value the costs.
The converse is true for CEA and CBA analyses of specific healthcare
technologies.
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:16001] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: From Brad De Long
. . . So there is limited or no rationale
>for an overall budget constraint, whether expressed in
>dollars or lives.
So what's the limit on this? What keeps you from descending to the
horrific Summers/Pritchett level, where the logic of dumping toxic
waste in Africa is "impeccable"? Doug
Good question. It would seem to defy science.
Maybe we should ask what Jesus would do.
mbs
