Archive for October, 2009

the US healthcare bill

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Everyone agrees that the health bill approved by the Senate finance committee last week is a flawed bill. Nonetheless, argues Financial Times columnist Clive Crook, “the bill is a breakthrough” and Barack Obama is right to call it a “critical milestone”.

Nobody actually likes the measure. A muddle of awkward compromises, it has something to offend everyone. …. Yet this is the furthest a bill to guarantee access to health insurance in the US has ever come. …. An entitlement that other rich countries have long taken for granted is finally within reach. ….

If this bill or something like it becomes law, Mr Obama’s prospects will revive, and he will have an indelible achievement to his name.

Why indelible? Because this dispensation will never be reversed. The country will decide it cannot live without it. Medicare, the publicly funded health programme for the elderly, is grossly inefficient and costs far too much, but ending it is unthinkable. The promise of access to affordable health insurance, once made, will never be renounced.

Clive Crook, “Passing a bill is just a start for healthcare”, Financial Times, 19 October 2009.

The Senate bill does nothing to address the high costs of health care; indeed, increased costs are inevitable because wider access to health insurance does not come cheaply. The US is a wealthy nation so, one might argue, can easily afford an increase in waste and inefficiency as a politically necessary price to pay for a long overdue reform. Eventually, as health costs rise even more, there will be pressure to reduce costs by moving to a single-payer system or, at the very least, to tight regulation of basic health insurance policies along the lines of the Swiss system. On the Swiss system, see this post by Jason Shafrin, a young healthcare economist based in California.

schooling in Arab countries

Sunday, October 18th, 2009

Arab countries spend a lot of their income on education–as a share of GDP, as much or more than the world average–but the quality of their schooling leaves much to be desired. This week’s Economist describes as “frightening” the “gap in the quality of education between Arabs and other people at a similar level of development” while acknowledging that Arab countries “have made great strides in eradicating illiteracy, boosting university enrolment and reducing gaps in education between the sexes”.

According to surveys, barely a third of Egyptian adults have ever heard of Charles Darwin and just 8% think there is any evidence to back his famous theory. Teachers, who might be expected to know better, seem equally sceptical. In a survey of nine Egyptian state schools, where Darwin’s ideas do form part of the curriculum for 15-year-olds, not one of more than 30 science teachers interviewed believed them to be true. At a private university in the United Arab Emirates, only 15% of the faculty thought there was good evidence to support evolution.

The strength of religious belief among Arabs partly explains their reluctance to accept the facts of evolution. Until recent reforms, state primary schools in Saudi Arabia devoted 31% of classroom time to religion, compared with just 20% for mathematics and science.

“Education in the Arab world: Laggards trying to catch up”, The Economist, 17 October 2009.

infant mortality in Chile, Costa Rica and Cuba

Saturday, October 17th, 2009

Infant Mortality Rates

(per thousand live births)

Year Chile    Costa Rica   Cuba

1960 119.5        74.3         35.9
1965 97.3         75.0         37.8
1970 82.2          61.5         38.7
1973 65.8          44.8         28.9
1980 33.0          19.1         19.6
1990 16.0          14.8         10.7
1992 13.9           13.7         10.2
2000 10.1          10.2           7.0

If we believe that the data are reasonably accurate, it is remarkable to note that in 1960 the infant mortality rate in Cuba was less than half of the rate in Costa Rica and less than a third of the rate in Chile. … [Both] Costa Rica and Chile were able to reduce infant mortality sharply, to the point that it is very close to Cuba’s. …. We can conclude that both Costa Rica and Chile were able to achieve very significant improvements in well being without having to suffer the devastating effects of socialism.

Juan A. B. Belt, “Costa Rica in Mesa-Lago’s Market, Socialist and Mixed Economies: Chile, Cuba and Costa Rica”, Cuba in Transition, ASCE 2001, p. 225.

Juan Belt is commenting on Cuban economist Carmelo Mesa-Lago’s book Market, Socialist, and Mixed Economies (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000). I added infant mortality rates for the year 2000 to Juan Belt’s table.

Recycled from the Thought du Jour 2003 archive.

apocalyptic demography

Saturday, October 17th, 2009

Many people fear that population ageing will cause health care costs to skyrocket. Numerous studies have debunked this as a myth. (See, for example, here and here and here and here.) Yet the belief persists. Why? Some years ago a group of researchers in British Columbia, in the conclusion of a report of their study of the effects of ageing on the demand for health care, examined the myth’s continuing appeal, in a section titled “What Keeps the Zombie Walking?”.

Apocalyptic demography, or more generally the claim that attempting to meet the health care needs of an aging population will bankrupt modern societies, or make universal health care systems unsustainable, is a “zombie”, an idea or allegation that is intellectually dead but can never permanently be put to rest. ….

Zombies appear to derive their vitality from two characteristics. First, they have a superficial plausibility …. It is true that older people use more health care, sometimes a lot more, than younger people, and it is true that the proportion of older people in all modern populations is increasing. So why should this not lead to large increases in health care use and costs? But more important, the zombie … serves the interests of some identifiable interest group. ….

If relentless demographic trends make universal public health care systems “unsustainable” – then they cannot be sustained. Their collapse is inevitable. What will replace them? Private or mixed public/private financing systems in which those with more resources get more care, and those with less get less. ….

The preference of the healthy and particularly of the wealthy for private financing of health care is readily understandable. Public systems require people to contribute more or less according to their income levels, regardless of their needs, and provide care according to needs, not according to income level. So the healthy and wealthy pay for more than they get, and the unhealthy and unwealthy get more than they pay for. To the extent that financing is privatized, those with more resources do not have to pay for care for those with less, and if they need care, they can buy themselves a (perceived) higher standard of care again without having to pay for a similar standard for others.

R.G.Evans et al., “Apocalypse No: Population Aging and the Future of Health Care Systems”, Canadian Journal of Aging 20 (Supplement 1, 2001), pp. 160–191.

controlling commercial banks

Friday, October 16th, 2009

Some of us become more radical as we age. Financial Times columnist Samuel Brittan, aged 75 years, ended his column today with this paragraph, almost as an afterthought:

Commercial banks certainly worsened the recession by greedily seeking higher returns than those provided by market interest rates; and they can put grit in the recovery by refusing to lend. I can only suggest making Paul Krugman, the radical Keynesian economist, Comptroller of the US Currency with over-reaching powers to take over old banks and initiate new ones, with similar appointments in other countries.

Samuel Brittan, “Whatever happened to imbalances?”, Financial Times, 16 October 2009.

The full column will eventually be posted here.

Sir Samuel Brittan has not always been so radical. According to Wikipedia,  two of his professors at Cambridge were Peter Bauer and Milton Friedman. Moreover, Samuel Brittan praised Margaret Thatcher at a time when most British intellectuals abhorred her policies. “In March 1981, when 364 leading economists wrote a letter to The Times criticising Margaret Thatcher’s economic policy, Brittan was one of the few commentators to openly defend the Conservative government’s policy.” Was it age (wisdom!) or the 2008 financial crisis that caused him to shift so radically his political views?

Mill, Marx, Hitler and UNESCO on state education

Friday, October 16th, 2009

Two of these authors oppose state education, and  two support the idea. Strange allies, indeed – on both sides of this issue.

First, the opponents of state schools.

A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body. An education established and controlled by the State, should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859), chapter V, paragraph 13.

‘Elementary education by the state’ is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and … supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school.

Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Program.

Next, the supporters of government schools.

By educating the young generation along the right lines, the People’s State will have to see to it that a generation of mankind is formed which will be adequate to this supreme combat that will decide the destinies of the world.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1939), trans. James Murphy, Vol II, Ch 2, p. 357.

[UNESCO] is convinced that public and private education sectors each have something valuable to contribute, and that by combining their efforts and forging partnerships, they can boost the educational system’s overall effectiveness–under one condition: primary responsibility for teaching must remain in the hands of public authorities, because they alone are the guardians of the common interest.

Jacques Hallak, “Guarding the common interest” , UNESCO Courier, November 2000, p. 17.

Jacques Hallak was writing in his official capacity, as UNESCO’s assistant director-general for education.

Recycled from the Thought du Jour archive.

neoliberals

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

I have often wondered what the neoliberal political philosophy might be, and how it differs from that of classical liberals such as Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. Neoliberalism is rarely defined, and the term is a source of much confusion. Oliver Marc Hartwich explains.

[T]he most curious characteristic of neoliberalism is the fact that these days hardly anyone self-identifies as a neoliberal. In former times, ideological debates were fought between, say, conservatives and socialists, collectivists and individualists. While there may not have been any other agreement between these opposing groups, at least they would have agreed about their respective identities. A socialist would not have felt offended by a conservative calling him a socialist and vice versa. ….

These are strange debates indeed when the enemy you are fighting claims he does not exist.

Maybe this is not so strange after all. If neoliberalism is hardly ever defined, if it can mean anything you wish to disagree with, then it is understandable that it results not from an attempt to gain theoretical knowledge but from the desire to defame your political opponents … [with] an almost meaningless insult.

It was not always like this. At the beginning of neoliberalism, when the term was invented, it was quite the opposite of what we think of it today. ….

It was … Alexander Rüstow [a German sociologist and economist] who, in 1938, coined the term neoliberalism. ….

In his essay `Between Capitalism and Communism’, Rüstow explicitly argues for a `Third Way’ between the two ideologies. He acknowledged that markets generally worked well under complete competition. However, he accused Adam Smith of holding a polemical grudge against the state ….

He called it [this 'Third Way'] neoliberalism to differentiate it from earlier liberalism, for which Rüstow frequently used derogatory terms such as `vulgar liberalism,’ `Manchester liberalism,’ or `paleo-liberalism.’ Rüstow wanted to break with this old liberal tradition to put a new liberalism in its place—hence the prefix `neo’. ….

[C]riticism of laissez faire plus the recognition of the power of markets and scepticism of state power is the core of the neoliberal project as it was once formulated. This would almost make [today's anti-neoliberal] … a neoliberal in the original meaning of the word.

Oliver Marc Hartwich, “Neoliberalism: The Genesis of a Political Swearword”, CIS Occasional Paper 114, May 2009.

German-born lawyer and economist Oliver Marc Hartwich is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, Australia.

Recycled from the Thought du Jour archive.

more praise for Elinor Ostrom

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

When I started studying economics in graduate school, the standard operating procedure was to … assume a particular set of rules and technologies, as though they descended from the sky ….

A typical conclusion was that rules that assign property rights and rules that let people trade lead to good outcomes. … Why would they respect the property rights of someone else? We had no idea. ….

Elinor’s fieldwork, followed up by her experimental work, pointed us in exactly the right direction. ….

Economists … who think that they are doing deep theory but are really just assuming their conclusions, find it hard to even understand what it would mean to make the rules that humans follow the object of scientific inquiry. If we fail to explore rules in greater depth, economists will have little to say about the most pressing issues facing humans today – how to improve the quality of bad rules that cause needless waste, harm, and suffering.

Cheers to the Nobel committee for recognizing work on one of the deepest issues in economics. Bravo to the political scientist who showed that she was a better economist than the economic imperialists who can’t tell the difference between assuming and understanding.

Paul Romer, “Skyhooks versus Cranes: The Nobel Prize for Elinor Ostrom”, Charter Cities, 12 October 2009.

Stanford economist Paul Romer ‘invented’ endogenous growth theory.  He earned a BS in physics (1977) and a PhD in economics (1983), both from the University of Chicago, which makes his praise of Elinor Ostrom’s work all the more surprising, and more noble. This brief essay is outstanding, worth reading in its entirety. Highly recommended.

praise for Elinor Ostrom

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues in the International Association for the Study of Common Property have gotten a lot of mileage out of proving Garrett Hardin wrong. Hardin coined the phrase “Tragedy of the Commons” in a seminal 1968 Science article. Hardin’s brief article offered a clear and intuitively appealing account of why common property resources (CPRs) would not be managed sustainably at a local level. Ostrom and her colleagues showed that the Tragedy of the Commons was not inevitable and that a great number of different CPRs could be sustainably managed, sometimes for centuries…..

It turns out the problem with commons is not common ownership: it is open access.

Inger Weibust, reviewing The Commons in the New Millennium: Challenges and Adaptations, edited by Nives Dolsak and Elinor Ostrom (MIT Press, 2003) in Global Environmental Politics 4:4 (November 2004), pp. 161-163.

Recycled from the Thought du Jour archive.

Inger Wiebust is an assistant professor in the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs (NPSIA), Carleton University, Ottawa. She is author of Green Leviathan: The Case for a Federal Role in Environmental Policy (Ashgate, London, UK, 2009). Indiana University political scientist Elinor Ostrom yesterday shared the Nobel Prize in economics “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons”.

health care as a human right

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

NYU economist Bill Easterly has a column in today’s Financial Times that seems to reject the idea of universal health care, even for a country as wealthy as the US. I was not convinced.

The agonising US healthcare debate has taken on a new moral tone. President Barack Obama recently held a conference call with religious leaders in which he called healthcare “a core ethical and moral obligation”. Even Sarah Palin felt obliged to concede: “Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick.” ….

The pragmatic approach – directing public resources to where they have the most health benefits for a given cost – historically achieved far more than the moral approach.

In the US and other rich countries, a “right to health” is a claim on funds that has no natural limit, since any of us could get healthier with more care. We should learn from the international experience that this “right” skews public resources towards the most politically effective advocates, who will seldom be the neediest.

William Easterly, “Human rights are the wrong basis for healthcare”, Financial Times, 13 October 2009.

Easterly’s argument makes sense only if we interpret “right to health” as a right to any and all health care, regardless of cost. No universal programme – not even US Medicare for the elderly – provides unlimited care at any cost. If we interpret “right to health” as a “right to basic health care”, it is entirely consistent with Easterly’s preferred “pragmatic approach – directing public resources to where they have the most health benefits for a given cost”.

The definition of ‘basic health care’ will, of course, vary from country to country. Similarly, the right to “basic education” is typically restricted to primary school in poor countries, but may include high school or even post-secondary education in more affluent countries.