Home » Posts tagged 'Benefit-Cost Analysis'
Tag Archives: Benefit-Cost Analysis
My brother sent me a link for Under the Dome and asked me what I thought of it. Under the Dome is a brave documentary on how China’s policy of develop at any cost is costing the people it is meant to benefit. It is made by Chai Jing, a former investigative journalist of CCTV (the State-owned TV network), and was originally hosted on the People Daily’s (another State-owned media organ) website until the Chinese Government ordered its removal. What I find most interesting about the documentary is how personal it is: this documentary rams home the point that the cost of environmental pollution is deeply personal, not an ideological preoccupation of the rich, Western global elite.
Environmental impacts have been depicted as a rich world obsession. But we can see in China that the people most affected are ordinary people, not the elite of the business and political cadres. Ultimately, people will suffer the costs of pollution. The costs to people are the result of environmental degradation and should be weighed against the economic benefits of development in public policy analysis. This blog post will ask the question, was all the air pollution worth it?
The spectre of an Ebola outbreak has predictably prompted knee jerk reactions from governments around the world in an attempt to demonstrate that they are in control. Certainly, governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens and to prevent a panic amongst their constituents. In a sense, Ebola is only one example of how perception has come to dominate policy effectiveness in governments around the world. This post is not a whinge-fest on the hopelessness of governments. Instead, I want to demonstrate how a benefit-cost framework can help governments understand the pros and cons of different Ebola response strategies taken from my experience working on biosecurity issues. I will do so in a qualitative way to show that benefit-cost analysis does not necessarily involve lengthy reports and expensive consultants – this is something that can be done quickly to give policy-makers a sense of what are the main drivers of the problem (Ebola) and what strategies can be used to deal with it.
Last week, the consulting firm Deloitte’s released a new report titled, Get out of your own way: Unleashing productivity as part of their ‘Building the Lucky Country’ series. One of the main results was that Australian businesses imposed more red tape on themselves than the government does. Deloitte’s quantified the annual cost of self-imposed $155 billion compared to $94 billion from government-imposed regulation. Furthermore, this cost is associated with the growing ‘compliance sector’ that replaced the back-office staff that had been shed as a result of improvements in technology. So Australian firms have effectively spent their productivity dividend on beefing up their compliance capacity rather than concentrating on core activities. Deloitte’s attributes the growth of the ‘compliance sector’ to the growing risk-aversion among large Australian corporates to avoiding ‘stuff ups’. I generally found it an interesting report, although I thought it brushed over an important point: imposing rules is an implicit investment decision. I want to go through this important point in more detail in this post.