So, I followed up that article by Landsburg (which is the first chapter of a book) by reading a review of the book that was linked to in the same NYTimes piece. It concludes:
This problem plagues [Landsburg and his economist peers]: like the overly chaste singles who are supposedly contributing to the H.I.V. epidemic, they don’t get out enough. They are asking good questions about epidemiology and psychology, but they are not spending much time with epidemiologists and psychologists, let alone with the people who are the subjects of their academic research. As a result, they arrive at conclusions that can be clever but lack wisdom, as the economist David Colander points out in his recent book, “The Making of an Economist, Redux.”
Citing the doctrine that good incentives lead to good outcomes, Landsburg, for example, argues that commissioners of the [FDA] should be paid with the stock of pharmaceutical companies (to prevent them from being “overly cautious” about approving new drugs). Furthermore, he says the president of the United States should be paid with a “diversified land portfolio,” since the price of land is the best measure of how many people “want to live here and plan their futures here.” He also suggests that the postwar looting of museums isn’t really a problem and, of course, that more sex equals safer sex. Perhaps the better conclusion is that fewer ideas would make for better ideas.
I agree with the skepticism (though perhaps not the tone), especially after talking with a friend who worked for an NGO in Africa. He told me that research has demonstrated that condom use is highest not when condoms are free or actively pushed on people, but when they’re at a price that fits their market. The price conveys that they are items to be valued, but still leaves them within reach. For much of Africa this puts the price at something like $0.04 for a box, but it’s still a positive price, unlike the sub-zero price Landsburg argues for. Also, I found myself remembering an article on mosquito nets. Aid workers were handing out mosquito nets in exchange for people bringing in their children to be vaccinated. This led to people bringing in the same child to multiple locations (since mosquito nets are relatively expensive), which ended up killing several children. If anybody remembers where that article was published, please point it out to me? My google-fu is weak.
Post a Comment