« November 18, 2004 | Main | November 20, 2004 »
Diversity in Academia?
Of course not. The New York Times reports on new survey research by Dan Klein on the voting behavior of academics. Anthropologists are comfortable living with cannibals in South America but they vote Democrat 30 to 1. Economists are among the least "biased", they vote Democrat to Republican at about 3 to 1.
This reminds me of the great Adlai Stevenson line. A supporter once called out, "Governor Stevenson, all thinking people are for you!" And Adlai Stevenson answered, "That's not enough. I need a majority."
Addendum: Thanks to Vicki White for directing me to the correct quote which I had earlier misattributed.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on November 19, 2004 at 08:31 AM in Political Science | Permalink | TrackBack
Markets in everything
Shoot at animals over the Internet and activate a real gun to kill them. Here is the website, and thanks to GeekPress.com for the pointer.
My question: If you add them all up, what percentage of these "Markets in Everything" installments is actually appealing?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 19, 2004 at 07:37 AM in Economics | Permalink | TrackBack
Prizes for vaccines for the poor
One way to structure a vaccine comitment would be to guarantee a price of, say, $15-20 per person for the first 200-250 million people immunized, in exchange for a commitment from the developer to subsequently drop the price in the poorest countries to a modest markup over manufacturing cost. A commitment of this size would offer firms an opportunity for sales comparable to those available in commercial markets. It would be extremely cost-effective, saving more lives than virtually any imaginable health expenditure.
That is from Strong Medicine, by Michael Kremer and Rachel Glennerster. The authors have an excellent book and a noteworthy idea, but I have some worries.
Some poor countries, such as Ghana, have quasi-functional government. But other governments won't allow this to proceed unhindered. Remember when some Nigerian states banned the polio vaccine for (supposedly) spreading sterility and AIDS? That is an extreme example, but how about this?
In Africa, for example, it is estimated that only between 2-15% of children slept under bed-nets in 2001-a simple, effective and proven method to prevent malaria.
If the cure for AIDS were a single glass of clean water, millions of the infected still would die.
This is why economic development is so hard and so resists formulaic treatment. Correcting any single screwed up incentive won't bring as big a payoff as you might think, given how many other things are screwed up. We have to go one step at a time, but every step brings both short-term costs and political opposition, while not showing much in the way of immediate benefits.
Prizes work best when the prize-giver is aiming at a well-defined end, where success is easy to measure. This fits "inventing a malaria vaccine" better than "distributing a malaria vaccine." I would be willing to try this scheme, given the high upside returns. But it is quite possible we could go ten years or more without seeing much in the way of tangible results, even once something is invented.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 19, 2004 at 05:43 AM in Medicine | Permalink | TrackBack