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}
This article compares the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ex ante cost analysis of its 1995 Large Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC): New Source Performance Standards and Emissions Guidelines rule to an ex post assessment of its cost. Unlike many retrospective cost analyses, where ex post assessments are limited due to lack of data on compliance costs, this case study is unique because we located and used plant-level survey data from the U.S. Department of Energy and Governmental Advisory Associates in a comparison of ex ante and ex post costs of individual MWCs. We find the ex post capital expenditures for nitrogen oxide control systems are typically lower than the EPA ex ante estimates, while the ex post capital expenditures for mercury control systems tend to be higher than the EPA ex ante estimates. Finally, while we find a few outliers, the average ratio of ex post to ex ante capital expenditures for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions control is near unity.
{"title":"Ex Ante Costs Versus Ex Post Costs of the Large Municipal Waste Combustor Rule","authors":"Cynthia L. Morgan, Carl Pasurka","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.16","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article compares the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ex ante cost analysis of its 1995 Large Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC): New Source Performance Standards and Emissions Guidelines rule to an ex post assessment of its cost. Unlike many retrospective cost analyses, where ex post assessments are limited due to lack of data on compliance costs, this case study is unique because we located and used plant-level survey data from the U.S. Department of Energy and Governmental Advisory Associates in a comparison of ex ante and ex post costs of individual MWCs. We find the ex post capital expenditures for nitrogen oxide control systems are typically lower than the EPA ex ante estimates, while the ex post capital expenditures for mercury control systems tend to be higher than the EPA ex ante estimates. Finally, while we find a few outliers, the average ratio of ex post to ex ante capital expenditures for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions control is near unity.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90978702","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 As its practitioners know well, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) walks a fine line between the positive and normative, between the science of economics and the art of political economy. Missteps threaten to undermine its credibility as a value-free science, while overcaution risks irrelevance to the pressing questions of the day. As BCA adapts to give more weight to distributional concerns, while operating in a more highly charged political environment than ever before, these tensions will only grow. For perspective, I reexamine three prominent episodes in the history of economics where these issues were vigorously debated: (i) The founding of the NBER by Wesley Clair Mitchell, who insisted that the organization eschew all policy recommendations; (ii) the introduction of the modern definition of economics as the study of tradeoffs by Lionel Robbins, who insisted welfare effects could never be aggregated; and (iii) the origins of BCA as a measure of income, which to first-generation practitioners seemed to foreclose the possibility of measuring “intangible” benefits like recreation opportunities, mortality risks, and equity. These episodes, together with critiques of economics from philosophers of science, suggest we are best served by being as transparent as possible about the ways values influence BCA reasoning, without arrogating political decisions into it.
{"title":"Distribution and Disputation: Net Benefits, Equity, and Public Decision-Making","authors":"H. Banzhaf","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.30","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As its practitioners know well, benefit-cost analysis (BCA) walks a fine line between the positive and normative, between the science of economics and the art of political economy. Missteps threaten to undermine its credibility as a value-free science, while overcaution risks irrelevance to the pressing questions of the day. As BCA adapts to give more weight to distributional concerns, while operating in a more highly charged political environment than ever before, these tensions will only grow. For perspective, I reexamine three prominent episodes in the history of economics where these issues were vigorously debated: (i) The founding of the NBER by Wesley Clair Mitchell, who insisted that the organization eschew all policy recommendations; (ii) the introduction of the modern definition of economics as the study of tradeoffs by Lionel Robbins, who insisted welfare effects could never be aggregated; and (iii) the origins of BCA as a measure of income, which to first-generation practitioners seemed to foreclose the possibility of measuring “intangible” benefits like recreation opportunities, mortality risks, and equity. These episodes, together with critiques of economics from philosophers of science, suggest we are best served by being as transparent as possible about the ways values influence BCA reasoning, without arrogating political decisions into it.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"8 1","pages":"205 - 229"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139357803","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}
James D. Feyrer, Vladimir Tyazhelnikov, Benjamin Aleman-Castilla, Brad Wong
Drawing upon recent studies that empirically estimate both the benefits and costs of trade, this paper addresses a simple and important question: By how much do the benefits of increased global trade outweigh the costs? To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to answer this question at global and World Bank income-grouping levels using empirically estimated relationships from the trade cost literature. Using a structural gravity model, we simulate changes in three primary trade constraints: a 10% reduction in tariff levels, a 10% reduction in effective distance, and a 10% increase in free trade agreement depth. The projection leads to a roughly 5% increase in global trade by value. Our model suggests that increased trade has an incredibly high benefit–cost ratio (BCR) for the developing world with an order-of-magnitude estimate for low- and lower–middle-income countries of 100 and for upper–middle-income countries of 50. However, the BCR for high-income countries is substantially lower, with a value closer to 5. Overall, the results suggest that free trade leads to substantial net benefits globally, generating US$ 700 billion in benefits (0.83% of global GDP) and US$ 100 billion in costs (0.12% of global GDP) in the first year, a differential that grows over time. Sensitivity analyses suggest that our BCRs are on the lower end of a plausible range. The results point to the incredible value of free trade, particularly for developing countries, and reiterate the importance of considering distributional impacts when implementing trade reforms.
{"title":"Benefit–Cost Analysis of Increased Trade: An Order-of-Magnitude Estimate of the Benefit–Cost Ratio","authors":"James D. Feyrer, Vladimir Tyazhelnikov, Benjamin Aleman-Castilla, Brad Wong","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.12","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Drawing upon recent studies that empirically estimate both the benefits and costs of trade, this paper addresses a simple and important question: By how much do the benefits of increased global trade outweigh the costs? To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to answer this question at global and World Bank income-grouping levels using empirically estimated relationships from the trade cost literature. Using a structural gravity model, we simulate changes in three primary trade constraints: a 10% reduction in tariff levels, a 10% reduction in effective distance, and a 10% increase in free trade agreement depth. The projection leads to a roughly 5% increase in global trade by value. Our model suggests that increased trade has an incredibly high benefit–cost ratio (BCR) for the developing world with an order-of-magnitude estimate for low- and lower–middle-income countries of 100 and for upper–middle-income countries of 50. However, the BCR for high-income countries is substantially lower, with a value closer to 5. Overall, the results suggest that free trade leads to substantial net benefits globally, generating US$ 700 billion in benefits (0.83% of global GDP) and US$ 100 billion in costs (0.12% of global GDP) in the first year, a differential that grows over time. Sensitivity analyses suggest that our BCRs are on the lower end of a plausible range. The results point to the incredible value of free trade, particularly for developing countries, and reiterate the importance of considering distributional impacts when implementing trade reforms.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77845478","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}
David Watkins, S. Ahmed, Sarah J. Pickersgill, Saleema Razvi
The world remains off-track for the sustainable development goal (SDG) target 3.4, which calls for a one-third reduction in noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) mortality by 2030. This paper presents benefit–cost analyses of various NCD interventions in low-income (LICs) and lower–middle-income (LMCs) countries. We looked at 30 interventions recommended by the Disease Control Priorities Project, including six intersectoral policies (e.g., taxes) and 24 clinical services. We used a previously published model to estimate intervention costs and benefits through 2030, discounted at 8%. We focused on interventions with benefit–cost ratios (BCRs) > 15 and their contribution toward achieving the SDG target. We found that intersectoral policies often provided great value for money, with BCRs ranging from 40 (trans-fat bans) to 100 (tobacco excise taxes). However, seven clinical interventions (e.g., basic treatment of cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) also had BCRs > 15. The overall population impact of clinical interventions over the 2023–2030 period would be much higher than that of the intersectoral policies, which can take many years to reach their peak effects. Fully implementing the best-investment interventions would accelerate progress toward SDG 3.4 everywhere, but only one in 10 countries would achieve the target. This strategy would require an additional US$ 2.4 billion annually across all LICs and LMCs. We conclude that there are several cost-beneficial opportunities to tackle NCDs in LICs and LMCs. In countries with very limited resources, the best-investment interventions could begin to address the major NCD risk factors and build greater health system capacity, with benefits continuing to accrue beyond 2030.
{"title":"Best Investments in Chronic, Noncommunicable Disease Prevention and Control in Low- and Lower–Middle-Income Countries","authors":"David Watkins, S. Ahmed, Sarah J. Pickersgill, Saleema Razvi","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.25","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The world remains off-track for the sustainable development goal (SDG) target 3.4, which calls for a one-third reduction in noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) mortality by 2030. This paper presents benefit–cost analyses of various NCD interventions in low-income (LICs) and lower–middle-income (LMCs) countries. We looked at 30 interventions recommended by the Disease Control Priorities Project, including six intersectoral policies (e.g., taxes) and 24 clinical services. We used a previously published model to estimate intervention costs and benefits through 2030, discounted at 8%. We focused on interventions with benefit–cost ratios (BCRs) > 15 and their contribution toward achieving the SDG target. We found that intersectoral policies often provided great value for money, with BCRs ranging from 40 (trans-fat bans) to 100 (tobacco excise taxes). However, seven clinical interventions (e.g., basic treatment of cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) also had BCRs > 15. The overall population impact of clinical interventions over the 2023–2030 period would be much higher than that of the intersectoral policies, which can take many years to reach their peak effects. Fully implementing the best-investment interventions would accelerate progress toward SDG 3.4 everywhere, but only one in 10 countries would achieve the target. This strategy would require an additional US$ 2.4 billion annually across all LICs and LMCs. We conclude that there are several cost-beneficial opportunities to tackle NCDs in LICs and LMCs. In countries with very limited resources, the best-investment interventions could begin to address the major NCD risk factors and build greater health system capacity, with benefits continuing to accrue beyond 2030.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85749043","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}
Government is the custodian of the most critical (and limited) factor of production, namely, land. Assuring the security of tenure, arbitrating disputes, and facilitating the transfer or sales of titles renders the land market more efficient and less volatile, attracting investors and promoting sustainable urban development. Land tenure security is also a critical government service that has repercussions on agricultural productivity, housing development, business investment, and the development of urban areas. However, land administration is mired in corruptive practices, elite capture, and inefficient allocation. Globally, only 24% of rural areas are mapped (46 in urban areas), with approximately the same percentage registered, that is, 22%. In Africa, only about 14% of rural land is formally recorded in a public register. Land tenure security can take a variety of forms depending on national regulatory frameworks that allocate land and specify its use. Success stories include transferable user certificates in China and individual land titles in Rwanda. Systematic evaluation of the evidence on tenure programs demonstrates that improved tenure security increases agricultural output (40% on average), increases urban land values (25% on average), and increases household welfare (15% on average). Other observed country-specific benefits include additional years of schooling, better academic performance, access to credit, reforestation, and improved household nutrition. The costs of establishing tenure security in Sub-Saharan Africa include the separate costs of rural (US$ 3 billion) and urban (US$ 2.2 billion) land registration; the cost of digitizing land registries and information to improve efficiency and transparency (US$ 880 million), the cost of strengthening institutions and systems to resolve land disputes and manage expropriations (US$ 960 million) over a ten-year implementation period, and land administration operations and land records maintenance over 30 years (US$ 64 billion). The net present value (8%) of costs is US$ 21.7 billion for rural land tenure and US$ 5.3 billion for urban areas. The benefits of rural land registration were based on the observed 15% household wealth effect noted in the literature. The net present value (8%) of a 30-year benefits stream is US$ 396 billion. The benefit–cost ratio of completing and modernizing land registration and improving land administration coverage and effectiveness in rural Sub-Saharan Africa is 18. The benefits of urban land registration were based on the average 25% increase in property values observed in the literature. Using housing prices for the 20 largest, Sub-Saharan African countries, the net present value (8%) of the benefits over a 30-year period is US$ 237 billion, yielding a benefit–cost ratio of 45 when the average housing price is used. When the population-weighted housing price is used, benefits are valued at US$ 160 billion, yielding a benefit–cost ratio of 30.
{"title":"The Investment Case for Land Tenure Security in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Cost–Benefit Analysis","authors":"F. Byamugisha, Nancy Dubosse","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.14","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Government is the custodian of the most critical (and limited) factor of production, namely, land. Assuring the security of tenure, arbitrating disputes, and facilitating the transfer or sales of titles renders the land market more efficient and less volatile, attracting investors and promoting sustainable urban development. Land tenure security is also a critical government service that has repercussions on agricultural productivity, housing development, business investment, and the development of urban areas. However, land administration is mired in corruptive practices, elite capture, and inefficient allocation. Globally, only 24% of rural areas are mapped (46 in urban areas), with approximately the same percentage registered, that is, 22%. In Africa, only about 14% of rural land is formally recorded in a public register. Land tenure security can take a variety of forms depending on national regulatory frameworks that allocate land and specify its use. Success stories include transferable user certificates in China and individual land titles in Rwanda. Systematic evaluation of the evidence on tenure programs demonstrates that improved tenure security increases agricultural output (40% on average), increases urban land values (25% on average), and increases household welfare (15% on average). Other observed country-specific benefits include additional years of schooling, better academic performance, access to credit, reforestation, and improved household nutrition. The costs of establishing tenure security in Sub-Saharan Africa include the separate costs of rural (US$ 3 billion) and urban (US$ 2.2 billion) land registration; the cost of digitizing land registries and information to improve efficiency and transparency (US$ 880 million), the cost of strengthening institutions and systems to resolve land disputes and manage expropriations (US$ 960 million) over a ten-year implementation period, and land administration operations and land records maintenance over 30 years (US$ 64 billion). The net present value (8%) of costs is US$ 21.7 billion for rural land tenure and US$ 5.3 billion for urban areas. The benefits of rural land registration were based on the observed 15% household wealth effect noted in the literature. The net present value (8%) of a 30-year benefits stream is US$ 396 billion. The benefit–cost ratio of completing and modernizing land registration and improving land administration coverage and effectiveness in rural Sub-Saharan Africa is 18. The benefits of urban land registration were based on the average 25% increase in property values observed in the literature. Using housing prices for the 20 largest, Sub-Saharan African countries, the net present value (8%) of the benefits over a 30-year period is US$ 237 billion, yielding a benefit–cost ratio of 45 when the average housing price is used. When the population-weighted housing price is used, benefits are valued at US$ 160 billion, yielding a benefit–cost ratio of 30.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89711386","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}
Undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies are key drivers of infant and child mortality and are causes of impaired human potential for hundreds of millions of children every year. Investing in nutrition in the first 1,000 days from conception not only supports individual lifetime health, education, and productivity, but is also key to breaking the intergenerational cycle of malnutrition and enhance equitable development pathways for low- and middle-income countries. This paper provides a cost–benefit analysis of three nutrition interventions: 1) provision of preventive small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements (SQ-LNS) to children 6−23 months of age; 2) Complementary Feeding Promotion (CFP) for children 6−23 months of age; 3) provision of multiple micronutrient (MMN) and calcium (Ca) supplements to pregnant women. The benefit–cost ratios (BCRs) for MMN supplementation for pregnant women replacing iron and folic acid (37.5), as well as MMN and Ca combined (19-24), are the highest. The BCRs for CFP for children in the two highest socio-economic status (SES) quintiles and SQ-LNS for children in the three lowest SES quintiles are fairly similar at 16 and 14, respectively. The lowest BCR is for CFP for children in the three lowest SES quintiles due to the high cost of accomplishing behavioral change for improved complementary feeding in resource-poor households.
{"title":"Investing in Nutrition: A Global Best Investment Case","authors":"B. Larsen, J. Hoddinott, Saleema Razvi","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.22","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies are key drivers of infant and child mortality and are causes of impaired human potential for hundreds of millions of children every year. Investing in nutrition in the first 1,000 days from conception not only supports individual lifetime health, education, and productivity, but is also key to breaking the intergenerational cycle of malnutrition and enhance equitable development pathways for low- and middle-income countries. This paper provides a cost–benefit analysis of three nutrition interventions: 1) provision of preventive small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements (SQ-LNS) to children 6−23 months of age; 2) Complementary Feeding Promotion (CFP) for children 6−23 months of age; 3) provision of multiple micronutrient (MMN) and calcium (Ca) supplements to pregnant women. The benefit–cost ratios (BCRs) for MMN supplementation for pregnant women replacing iron and folic acid (37.5), as well as MMN and Ca combined (19-24), are the highest. The BCRs for CFP for children in the two highest socio-economic status (SES) quintiles and SQ-LNS for children in the three lowest SES quintiles are fairly similar at 16 and 14, respectively. The lowest BCR is for CFP for children in the three lowest SES quintiles due to the high cost of accomplishing behavioral change for improved complementary feeding in resource-poor households.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87698579","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}
Greater labor migration can establish more channels for information flows, directly contributing to faster economic growth and improved innovation and work. It can also expand international remittances, which can be invested by recipient households in home countries in education, entrepreneurship, and improved and sustainable agricultural technologies. At the same time, however, increased emigration of medical professionals and technical workers from poor countries can reduce quality of local services, innovation, health status, and productivity. This analysis attempts to quantify the economic benefits and costs of permitting an immediate 10% increase in the bilateral migration of skilled workers (physicians, engineers or science, engineering, technology, and mathematics workers, and other persons with advanced educations) among the nations of the African Continental Free Trade Area and, more broadly, among 25 global regions. Economic benefits include higher migrant incomes abroad, welfare gains in destination countries associated with higher economic efficiency, spillover productivity gains, and an improved ability of the younger and more skilled working force to support the needs of the wider population, resulting in higher national production. Benefits in source countries include productivity enhancements from two sources: (a) greater access to knowledge associated with more bilateral trade and investment and (b) the ability of local households to invest remittances in productivity-enhancing activities. Welfare losses in source nations include static efficiency reductions and a worsened demographic support capability. In Africa, the benefit-cost ratios range from 3.7 to 6.9; in the global analysis, 17 to 38.
{"title":"A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Increased International Migration of Skilled Labor in Africa and the World","authors":"K. Maskus","doi":"10.1017/bca.2023.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2023.15","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Greater labor migration can establish more channels for information flows, directly contributing to faster economic growth and improved innovation and work. It can also expand international remittances, which can be invested by recipient households in home countries in education, entrepreneurship, and improved and sustainable agricultural technologies. At the same time, however, increased emigration of medical professionals and technical workers from poor countries can reduce quality of local services, innovation, health status, and productivity. This analysis attempts to quantify the economic benefits and costs of permitting an immediate 10% increase in the bilateral migration of skilled workers (physicians, engineers or science, engineering, technology, and mathematics workers, and other persons with advanced educations) among the nations of the African Continental Free Trade Area and, more broadly, among 25 global regions. Economic benefits include higher migrant incomes abroad, welfare gains in destination countries associated with higher economic efficiency, spillover productivity gains, and an improved ability of the younger and more skilled working force to support the needs of the wider population, resulting in higher national production. Benefits in source countries include productivity enhancements from two sources: (a) greater access to knowledge associated with more bilateral trade and investment and (b) the ability of local households to invest remittances in productivity-enhancing activities. Welfare losses in source nations include static efficiency reductions and a worsened demographic support capability. In Africa, the benefit-cost ratios range from 3.7 to 6.9; in the global analysis, 17 to 38.","PeriodicalId":45587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77266637","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：