This article examines a policy of scaling up LLINs by 10 percentage points from 2020 levels with a 90% cap in the 29 highest-burden countries in Africa along with social and behavioral change (SBC) and information education and communication (IEC) campaigns to increase the use and effectiveness of LLINs. The incremental cost of this scenario compared to a baseline of maintaining malaria interventions at 2020 levels has a present-day (2023) value of 5.7 billion US$ 2021 discounted at 8% over the period 2023–2030 (undiscounted starting at US$ 416 million in 2023 increasing to US$ 1.4 billion in 2030). This investment will prevent 1.07 billion clinical cases and save 1,337,069 lives. With standardized Copenhagen Consensus Center assumptions, the mortality benefit translates to a present value of US$ 225.9 billion. The direct economic gain is also substantial: the incremental scenarios lead to US$ 7.7 billion in reduced health system expenditure from the reduced treatment of cases, a reduction in the cost of delivering malaria control activities, and reduced household out-of-pocket expenses for malaria treatment. The productivity gains from averted employee and caretaker absenteeism and presenteeism add benefits with a present value of US$ 41.7 billion. Each dollar spent on the incremental scenario delivers US$ 48 in Societal.
{"title":"An Investment Case for the Scale-up and Use of Insecticide-Treated Nets Halfway into the SDG Targets","authors":"Rima Shretta, Randolph Ngwafor Anye","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.23","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines a policy of scaling up LLINs by 10 percentage points from 2020 levels with a 90% cap in the 29 highest-burden countries in Africa along with social and behavioral change (SBC) and information education and communication (IEC) campaigns to increase the use and effectiveness of LLINs. The incremental cost of this scenario compared to a baseline of maintaining malaria interventions at 2020 levels has a present-day (2023) value of 5.7 billion US$ 2021 discounted at 8% over the period 2023–2030 (undiscounted starting at US$ 416 million in 2023 increasing to US$ 1.4 billion in 2030). This investment will prevent 1.07 billion clinical cases and save 1,337,069 lives. With standardized Copenhagen Consensus Center assumptions, the mortality benefit translates to a present value of US$ 225.9 billion. The direct economic gain is also substantial: the incremental scenarios lead to US$ 7.7 billion in reduced health system expenditure from the reduced treatment of cases, a reduction in the cost of delivering malaria control activities, and reduced household out-of-pocket expenses for malaria treatment. The productivity gains from averted employee and caretaker absenteeism and presenteeism add benefits with a present value of US$ 41.7 billion. Each dollar spent on the incremental scenario delivers US$ 48 in Societal.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":" 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138963070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sustainable Development Goal Halftime Project: Benefit-Cost Analysis Using Methods from the Decade of Vaccine Economics Model–CORRIGENDUM","authors":"Bryan Patenaude, Salin Sriudomporn, Joshua Mak","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.35","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"34 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135870551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
{"title":"Best Investments in Chronic, Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control in Low- and Lower–Middle-Income Countries – CORRIGENDUM","authors":"David Watkins, Sali Ahmed, Sarah Pickersgill","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.34","url":null,"abstract":"An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135995562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are ambitious but in deep trouble. Benefit–cost analysis can help. This Special Issue highlights 12 of the most efficient interventions to speed up progress on the SDGs with Benefit–Cost Ratios (BCRs) above 15. The approaches cover tuberculosis, education, maternal and newborn health, agricultural R&D, malaria, e-procurement, nutrition, land tenure security, chronic diseases, trade, child immunization, and skilled migration. Spanning 2023–2030, these policy approaches are estimated to cost an annual average of $41 billion (of which $6 billion is non-financial). They will realistically deliver $2.1 trillion in annual benefits, consisting of $1.1 trillion in economic benefits and 4.2 million lives saved. The pooled benefit–cost ratio of all 12 investments is 52. By prioritizing these high-impact “best buy” interventions, decision-makers can enhance resource allocation and contribute most efficiently to the SDGs.
{"title":"Save 4.2 Million Lives and Generate $1.1 Trillion in Economic Benefits for Only $41 Billion: Introduction to the Special Issue on the Most Efficient Policies for the Sustainable Development Goals","authors":"Bjorn Lomborg","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.32","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are ambitious but in deep trouble. Benefit–cost analysis can help. This Special Issue highlights 12 of the most efficient interventions to speed up progress on the SDGs with Benefit–Cost Ratios (BCRs) above 15. The approaches cover tuberculosis, education, maternal and newborn health, agricultural R&D, malaria, e-procurement, nutrition, land tenure security, chronic diseases, trade, child immunization, and skilled migration. Spanning 2023–2030, these policy approaches are estimated to cost an annual average of $41 billion (of which $6 billion is non-financial). They will realistically deliver $2.1 trillion in annual benefits, consisting of $1.1 trillion in economic benefits and 4.2 million lives saved. The pooled benefit–cost ratio of all 12 investments is 52. By prioritizing these high-impact “best buy” interventions, decision-makers can enhance resource allocation and contribute most efficiently to the SDGs.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"1140 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136113892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Professional sports teams commonly reevaluate their location decisions based on the prospect of building new, more attractive, stadiums. Even though a large economic literature warns about the modest (and possibly negative) effects on the local economy of hosting a professional sports team, the economic effects of professional teams and stadiums remain blurry for the general public, and cities in the United States continue to compete to lure teams with generous public subsidies. This article integrates several contributions of the literature into one cohesive and simple framework based on cost–benefit analysis, and provides estimations of the average local economic effects of teams in the four biggest professional leagues in the United States. If professional sports games do not attract visitors from other cities, or if players and owners do not spend a significant share of their income in the area, hosting a team can negatively affect the local economy.
{"title":"Cost–Benefit Analysis of an “Average” Professional Sports Team or Stadium in the United States","authors":"Cristian F. Sepulveda","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.33","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Professional sports teams commonly reevaluate their location decisions based on the prospect of building new, more attractive, stadiums. Even though a large economic literature warns about the modest (and possibly negative) effects on the local economy of hosting a professional sports team, the economic effects of professional teams and stadiums remain blurry for the general public, and cities in the United States continue to compete to lure teams with generous public subsidies. This article integrates several contributions of the literature into one cohesive and simple framework based on cost–benefit analysis, and provides estimations of the average local economic effects of teams in the four biggest professional leagues in the United States. If professional sports games do not attract visitors from other cities, or if players and owners do not spend a significant share of their income in the area, hosting a team can negatively affect the local economy.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135344897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In 2023, the world will be at “halftime” with respect to the sustainable development goals (SDGs). This midline acts as an important milestone to review the progress of the SDGs and develop policies based on the most effective interventions. To estimate the remaining resources needed to achieve SDG targets for vaccines from 2023 to 2030 as well the resulting economic benefits, in this analysis, the incremental economic benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for immunization programs in 80 low- and middle-income countries targeted by the Global Vaccine Action Plan from 2023 to 2030 is calculated. Of these 80 countries, 27 are classified as low-income countries and 53 are classified as lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). The economic evaluation covers 9 vaccines employed against 10 antigens and delivered through both routine immunization programs and supplemental immunization activities. The vaccines covered in the analysis include pentavalent vaccine, human papillomavirus vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccine, measles vaccine, measles-rubella vaccine, meningococcal conjugate A vaccine, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, rotavirus vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine, and correspond to the vaccines covered in the return-on-investment estimates presented in Sim et al. , which covered 94 LMICs from 2011 to 2030. For these countries, we estimate program costs from the health system perspective, including vaccine costs such as costs to procure vaccines, which incorporate injection supplies and freight; and immunization delivery costs, which include nonvaccine commodity costs to deliver immunizations to target populations and incorporate labor, cold chain and storage, transportation, facilities, training, surveillance, and wastage. Economic benefits are calculated using a value of statistical life year (VSLY) approach applied to modeled cases, and deaths averted are converted into averted years of life lost using life expectancy data. BCRs are presented as the final output that compares incremental costs and benefits from the baseline of 2022 levels, assuming diminishing returns to scale. Overall, for this period, we estimate total costs of US$ 7,581,837,329.08 with VSLY benefits of US$ 762,172,371,553.54, resulting in a BCR of 100.53.
{"title":"Sustainable Development Goal Halftime Project: Benefit-Cost Analysis Using Methods from the Decade of Vaccine Economics Model","authors":"Bryan Patenaude, Nancy Dubosse, Salin Sriudomporn, Joshua Mak","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.11","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2023, the world will be at “halftime” with respect to the sustainable development goals (SDGs). This midline acts as an important milestone to review the progress of the SDGs and develop policies based on the most effective interventions. To estimate the remaining resources needed to achieve SDG targets for vaccines from 2023 to 2030 as well the resulting economic benefits, in this analysis, the incremental economic benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for immunization programs in 80 low- and middle-income countries targeted by the Global Vaccine Action Plan from 2023 to 2030 is calculated. Of these 80 countries, 27 are classified as low-income countries and 53 are classified as lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). The economic evaluation covers 9 vaccines employed against 10 antigens and delivered through both routine immunization programs and supplemental immunization activities. The vaccines covered in the analysis include pentavalent vaccine, human papillomavirus vaccine, Japanese encephalitis vaccine, measles vaccine, measles-rubella vaccine, meningococcal conjugate A vaccine, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, rotavirus vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine, and correspond to the vaccines covered in the return-on-investment estimates presented in Sim et al. , which covered 94 LMICs from 2011 to 2030. For these countries, we estimate program costs from the health system perspective, including vaccine costs such as costs to procure vaccines, which incorporate injection supplies and freight; and immunization delivery costs, which include nonvaccine commodity costs to deliver immunizations to target populations and incorporate labor, cold chain and storage, transportation, facilities, training, surveillance, and wastage. Economic benefits are calculated using a value of statistical life year (VSLY) approach applied to modeled cases, and deaths averted are converted into averted years of life lost using life expectancy data. BCRs are presented as the final output that compares incremental costs and benefits from the baseline of 2022 levels, assuming diminishing returns to scale. Overall, for this period, we estimate total costs of US$ 7,581,837,329.08 with VSLY benefits of US$ 762,172,371,553.54, resulting in a BCR of 100.53.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135487463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Estimates of the elasticity of the marginal utility of income are necessary for determining distributional weights to correct for diminishing marginal utility of income, which is particularly important in light of increasing concern about accounting for distributional impacts in regulatory review. The elasticity is also necessary for computing the social discount rate using the Ramsey formula. Despite many attempts to estimate the elasticity of the marginal utility of income, considerable uncertainty exists about the magnitude of this key parameter. In this paper, we use meta-analysis of estimates of the elasticity from the US and UK to shed light on the appropriate elasticity values to use for both distributional weighting and discounting. Relying on our findings, we tentatively conclude that it is reasonable to base the social discount rate and distributional weights on an elasticity of 1.6, with lower- and upper-bound sensitivity testing at 1.2 and 2.0. This estimate results in distributional weights which appear plausible, and which we believe can contribute to a consensus on how to conduct distributional weighting. Moreover, the resulting social discount rate is within the range typically recommended when the Ramsey formula is used.
{"title":"The Elasticity of Marginal Utility of Income for Distributional Weighting and Social Discounting: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Dan Acland, D. Greenberg","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.29","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Estimates of the elasticity of the marginal utility of income are necessary for determining distributional weights to correct for diminishing marginal utility of income, which is particularly important in light of increasing concern about accounting for distributional impacts in regulatory review. The elasticity is also necessary for computing the social discount rate using the Ramsey formula. Despite many attempts to estimate the elasticity of the marginal utility of income, considerable uncertainty exists about the magnitude of this key parameter. In this paper, we use meta-analysis of estimates of the elasticity from the US and UK to shed light on the appropriate elasticity values to use for both distributional weighting and discounting. Relying on our findings, we tentatively conclude that it is reasonable to base the social discount rate and distributional weights on an elasticity of 1.6, with lower- and upper-bound sensitivity testing at 1.2 and 2.0. This estimate results in distributional weights which appear plausible, and which we believe can contribute to a consensus on how to conduct distributional weighting. Moreover, the resulting social discount rate is within the range typically recommended when the Ramsey formula is used.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85266476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Pretorius, N. Arinaminpathy, S. Mandal, S. Sahu, M. Pai, Roland Mathiasson, Brad Wong
This report presents a cost–benefit analysis of increased spending on tuberculosis (TB) using impacts and costs drawn from the Global Plan to End Tuberculosis, 2023–2030. The analysis indicates that the return on TB spending is substantial with a centrally estimated benefit–cost ratio (BCR) of 46, meaning every US$ 1 invested in TB yields US$ 46 in benefits. Alternative specifications using different baselines, interventions, cost profiles, and discount rates still yield robustly high BCRs, in the range of 28–84. This report also shows that TB investment would avert substantial mortality, estimated at 27.3 million averted deaths over the 28-year period between 2023 and 2050 inclusive: almost 1 million averted deaths per year on average. Accounting for all estimated direct and indirect costs, the cost per averted death is slightly over US$ 2000. Interventions to address TB represent exceptional value-for-money.
{"title":"One Million Lives Saved Per Year: A Cost–Benefit Analysis of the Global Plan to End Tuberculosis, 2023–2030 and Beyond","authors":"C. Pretorius, N. Arinaminpathy, S. Mandal, S. Sahu, M. Pai, Roland Mathiasson, Brad Wong","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.13","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This report presents a cost–benefit analysis of increased spending on tuberculosis (TB) using impacts and costs drawn from the Global Plan to End Tuberculosis, 2023–2030. The analysis indicates that the return on TB spending is substantial with a centrally estimated benefit–cost ratio (BCR) of 46, meaning every US$ 1 invested in TB yields US$ 46 in benefits. Alternative specifications using different baselines, interventions, cost profiles, and discount rates still yield robustly high BCRs, in the range of 28–84. This report also shows that TB investment would avert substantial mortality, estimated at 27.3 million averted deaths over the 28-year period between 2023 and 2050 inclusive: almost 1 million averted deaths per year on average. Accounting for all estimated direct and indirect costs, the cost per averted death is slightly over US$ 2000. Interventions to address TB represent exceptional value-for-money.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79050690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
N. Angrist, E. Aurino, H. Patrinos, George Psacharopoulos, Emiliana Vegas, R. Nordjo, Brad Wong
The current challenge of education systems is learning. Across low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMCs), 62 % of 10-year-olds could not read at a minimally sufficient level in 2015. This study provides an overview of recent spending on education and its correlation with learning outcomes. We show that the relationship between education spending and learning is historically weak. From 2000 to 2015, LICs and LMCs increased spending on education in primary schools by ~$137 per student, an 80 % inflation-adjusted increase, with no corresponding change on the average learning outcomes. We then conduct a benefit-cost analysis of candidate interventions that could increase learning at low cost. Two interventions – structured pedagogy and, teaching at the right level, with and without a technology component generate large benefit-cost ratios. If deployed uniformly to reach 90 % of the 467 million students in LICs and LMCs, these interventions would cost on average $18 per student per year or $7.6 billion annually, generating $65 in benefits for every $1 spent. The economic logic behind this finding is that the hard and costly work of getting children into primary schools has mostly been accomplished, leaving open the possibility of learning interventions that improve the efficiency of the existing education system at low cost. Our results show that increasing education expenditure by just 6 % could increase learning by 120 % if directed toward these highly cost-effective interventions.
{"title":"Improving Learning in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries","authors":"N. Angrist, E. Aurino, H. Patrinos, George Psacharopoulos, Emiliana Vegas, R. Nordjo, Brad Wong","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.26","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The current challenge of education systems is learning. Across low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMCs), 62 % of 10-year-olds could not read at a minimally sufficient level in 2015. This study provides an overview of recent spending on education and its correlation with learning outcomes. We show that the relationship between education spending and learning is historically weak. From 2000 to 2015, LICs and LMCs increased spending on education in primary schools by ~$137 per student, an 80 % inflation-adjusted increase, with no corresponding change on the average learning outcomes. We then conduct a benefit-cost analysis of candidate interventions that could increase learning at low cost. Two interventions – structured pedagogy and, teaching at the right level, with and without a technology component generate large benefit-cost ratios. If deployed uniformly to reach 90 % of the 467 million students in LICs and LMCs, these interventions would cost on average $18 per student per year or $7.6 billion annually, generating $65 in benefits for every $1 spent. The economic logic behind this finding is that the hard and costly work of getting children into primary schools has mostly been accomplished, leaving open the possibility of learning interventions that improve the efficiency of the existing education system at low cost. Our results show that increasing education expenditure by just 6 % could increase learning by 120 % if directed toward these highly cost-effective interventions.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89673365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Rosegrant, Brad Wong, T. Sulser, Nancy Dubosse, Travis J. Lybbert
This paper conducts a benefit–cost analysis of expanding agricultural research and development (R&D) in the Global South. We extend a recent modeling exercise that used IFPRI’s IMPACT model to estimate the investments required to reduce the global prevalence of hunger below 5%. After 35 years, the increased funding is estimated to increase agricultural output by 10%, reduce the prevalence of hunger by 35%, reduce food prices by 16%, and increase per capita incomes by 4% relative to a counterfactual where funding continues to rise on historical trends. Using an 8% discount rate, the net present value of the costs of agricultural R&D are estimated at $61 billion for the next 35 years, while the net present benefits in terms of net economic surplus (the sum of consumer and producer surplus) are estimated at $2.1 trillion. The central estimate of the benefit–cost ratio (BCR) is 33, consistent with previous research documenting high average returns to agricultural research and development. The central BCR reported in this study places the intervention at the 91st percentile of all previous Copenhagen Consensus BCRs in agriculture, and 87th percentile for all BCRs regardless of sector. Agricultural R&D is likely one of the best uses of resources for the remainder of the Sustainable Development Goals and decades beyond.
{"title":"Benefit–Cost Analysis of Increased Funding for Agricultural Research and Development in the Global South","authors":"M. Rosegrant, Brad Wong, T. Sulser, Nancy Dubosse, Travis J. Lybbert","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.27","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper conducts a benefit–cost analysis of expanding agricultural research and development (R&D) in the Global South. We extend a recent modeling exercise that used IFPRI’s IMPACT model to estimate the investments required to reduce the global prevalence of hunger below 5%. After 35 years, the increased funding is estimated to increase agricultural output by 10%, reduce the prevalence of hunger by 35%, reduce food prices by 16%, and increase per capita incomes by 4% relative to a counterfactual where funding continues to rise on historical trends. Using an 8% discount rate, the net present value of the costs of agricultural R&D are estimated at $61 billion for the next 35 years, while the net present benefits in terms of net economic surplus (the sum of consumer and producer surplus) are estimated at $2.1 trillion. The central estimate of the benefit–cost ratio (BCR) is 33, consistent with previous research documenting high average returns to agricultural research and development. The central BCR reported in this study places the intervention at the 91st percentile of all previous Copenhagen Consensus BCRs in agriculture, and 87th percentile for all BCRs regardless of sector. Agricultural R&D is likely one of the best uses of resources for the remainder of the Sustainable Development Goals and decades beyond.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79286977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：