« What I've Been Reading | Main | Tyrone on American unhappiness »
Unintended Consequences meet Tragedy of the Commons
A decade ago, the saiga antelope seemed so secure that conservationists fighting to save the rhino from poaching suggested using saiga horn in traditional Chinese medicines as a substitute for rhino horn.
Research commissioned by WWF at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in the late 1980s found it to be as effective as rhino horn in fighting fevers, and in 1991 WWF began a campaign in Hong Kong to publicise it as an alternative. The following year, the UN Environment Programme appointed WWF ecologist Esmond Bradley Martin as its "special envoy" to persuade pharmacists across Asia to adopt saiga horn (New Scientist print edition, 9 March 1991 and 3 October 1992).
And the result?
In 1993, over a million saiga antelopes roamed the steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan. Today, fewer than 30,000 remain, most of them females. So many males have been shot for their horns, which are exported to China to be used in traditional fever cures, that the antelope may not be able to recover unaided.
The tragedy here is that diversion would have been a good idea had the WWF understood some economics - for diversion to work you must divert to a privately owned resource.
Hat tip to MetaFilter.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on November 13, 2007 at 07:20 AM in Economics, Science | Permalink
Comments
how come nobody is raising Saiga antelopes in farms, then ?
I heard they have tiger farms in China, also to be slaughtered for traditional medicines, and more tigers in those farms than there are in the wild ...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061222-tiger-farms.html
Posted by: Emil at Nov 13, 2007 7:44:27 AM
UN screws up again. No suprise.
Posted by: at Nov 13, 2007 7:51:31 AM
"how come nobody is raising Saiga antelopes in farms, then ? "
Why bother when all you have to do is go shoot em? Thus, the point about a private source.
Posted by: Alan Coffey at Nov 13, 2007 7:56:53 AM
UN screws up again. No surprise.
You had the WWF, Chinese pharmacists, and the UN to blame and you blame only the UN and add nothing to the story. That's why I keep reading this site--I'm addicted to the desire to scream when I read posts like this. (Well, that's not the only reason...)
found it to be as effective as rhino horn in fighting fevers
I have no doubt this is true :-) But is it as effective as Tylenol?
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at Nov 13, 2007 9:26:19 AM
I would very much like to see WWF called to account for its wasting of money. Generally I thought the organisation was merely ineffective. This is direct evidence of its negative influence.
If there was a prize for stupid NGOs - would WWF be in the running? Which others I wonder?
TimW
Posted by: TimW at Nov 13, 2007 10:47:17 AM
MostlyAPragmatist,
This is where most misunderstanding happens. Chinese medicine is often viewed with much scepticism, and has been claimed to be 'unscientific', 'ineffective' etc.
You see, the whole point of divide is the cultural difference. The western culture believe in point solutions - as in solutions at a point in time. Eastern culture (specifically east eastern) believe in the Big Picture. Chinese medicine cures by fixing the Big Picture. Both are good methods of curing, tylenol, and chinese herbs, but bases off different philosophical basis.
Sure, there are some unintended consequences like the extinction of animals (in this case the antelopes), but everything has a cost. Including Tylenol. Take aspirin for example - they've found quite a lot of bacterias and virii that are resistant to aspirin. In fact, some are more malevolent than ever. What are the long term effects of Tylenol (and other paracetemols), we don't know yet. The extinction of animals are the cost of chinese medicine, and mutation of disease carrying microorganism is the cost of western medicine.
Of course, then again, I'm comparing apples with oranges. I'll blog about this when I have a more lucid thought than anxiously waiting to get my hands on Crysis
Posted by: Chewxy at Nov 13, 2007 10:59:11 AM
If Chinese toy makers got into the medicine business, lots of tigers, rhinos and antelopes would be safe. Why is there NOT a bigger counterfeit/black market in these medicines? That's an interesting, institutional question....
Posted by: David Zetland at Nov 13, 2007 11:08:51 AM
The extinction of animals are the cost of chinese medicine
No, that is the cost of not having property rights.
It is quite sad, and disturbing, that organizations like the WWF continue to say silly things like "we need a new economics". What is really needed is for them to try to understand economics before they start spouting such nonsense. If they did they would understand that millions of a species notwithstanding, if you have a price of zero for them, and you deliberately induce new demand, that the ultimate outcome is blindingly obvious.
Add in property rights though, and what you get is a price that is higher than zero and which more or less automatically adjusts to discourage demand and encourage supply (i.e. in this case breeding) whenever there is a shortage, and vice versa whenever there is a surplus.
There need be no extinction.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Nov 13, 2007 11:13:53 AM
as gary becker taught at uofc - there are no such things as unintended consequences...only long run and short run consequences.
it pains very heavily to see economists use such a term, especially as it gets used around political issues. it seems to indicate that no level of intellectual riguour could have foreseen such an occurrence when rather the cause is temporal preferences or, in the case of politics, demagoguery.
Posted by: ptk at Nov 13, 2007 2:27:27 PM
"take aspirin for example - they've found quite a lot of bacterias and virii that are resistant to aspirin. In fact, some are more malevolent than ever."
i have no idea what you are talking about. aspirin is an NSAID...it is an analgesic, anti-coagulative and anti-inflammatory medication. it does nothing at all to microorganisms or viruses because it is NOT an antibiotic or anti-viral medication. I think you might mean penicillin instead of aspirin...but that is only an antibiotic and is not meant to be used against viruses.
(i'm not sure if you know this but tylenol and aspirin are two different drugs)
"What are the long term effects of Tylenol (and other paracetemols), we don't know yet."
tylenol is the trade name for acetominophen (US) and paracetemol (not US) hence there is no "other" paracetemols because it is a name of specific compound and not a class of drugs. also acetominophen has been used medically since the late 1800s so i think its fair to say we have a good idea about its long term risks....google and wikipedia might be useful here.
"The extinction of animals are the cost of chinese medicine"
umm...no. i take you haven't heard of this new inventions called "farming" and "ranching".
Posted by: BK at Nov 13, 2007 3:44:49 PM
Lawyer's vocal cords are good substitutes for saiga horns.
Posted by: John Kunze at Nov 13, 2007 3:52:02 PM
I don't understand why not. Does Becker claim we have perfect foresight and can, if we're only careful enough, predict all the consequences of our actions? That can't be right.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Nov 13, 2007 4:20:13 PM
The point about "unintended consequences" is that they should not be obvious.
Encourage mass shooting of an antelope -> antelope becomes endangered.
Any 5 year old could have predicted that.
Introduce stricter laws for credit to poor people -> poor people have less access to credit.
Drive all the [Zimbabwe] farmers off their land -> less food is grown.
This isn't difficult stuff, if this is "unintended" then the person is retarded. More likely it is perfectly intended, but the short term politics means you do it anyway.
Posted by: doctorpat at Nov 13, 2007 8:49:09 PM
Posted by: gg at Mar 31, 2008 1:36:24 AM
