No comments about The Development Economics Reader.

No comments about Politics In Latin America 2nd Edition.

4 comments about Environmental Economics.

1. This book is more than a simple overview of the wide environmental economics world, since it embraces the subject in a clear, comprenhensive but in-depth enough to get a very good picture of it.



2. Actual rating - 4.5 stars .

   I read this book as a must-read for the Environmental Economics course I had taken in the beginning of the last semester . I think this book is a great choice for students that are interested in this topic . Myself , I didn't know what to expect in the beginning of the course , but it turned up to be a surprisingly interesting and important issue - with the good help of this book .

   I have to say that I've learned a lot from reading this book , and it has been a pleasant experience too . Professor Kolstad has really accomplished a commendable achievement in writing a fluent , methodical , thorough and interesting book about Environmental Economics , nearly everyone who wishes to , can read and understand .

   I say it as a student who hasn't read other works on the subject , but nevertheless , feels this book has many pluses as an introduction to this subject :

   - The author , in spite of announcing it is a book for persons that have taken an Intermediate Microeconomics courses , makes far-reaching efforts to explain nearly every statement he proclaimed . This is a good feature students can use for reviewing forgotten material , deleting the need to use more fundamental books for understanding .

   - Significant number of chapters includes a small use of mathematic tools . This fact is of considerable help for the layman , who is interested in expending horizons and lacks the necessary mathematical skills .
   
   I believe the following points characterize many tutorials , but it's important to note them anyway;
   
   - Every figure the author uses is accompanied with detailed explanations that enhance the reader's ability to understand the sketch and the whole subject while at it .

   - Every chapter includes an introduction and a summery . The first connects the chapter to the previous one , and assists in grasping the place it takes in the big picture of things , while the second one summarize the major issues dealt with . This functions organize the material and construct an understandable structure of knowledge .

   - One last thing , that consists an advantage constructed with disadvantage is the appearance of questions and problems in the end of each chapter , in the obvious order to help you check out your understanding , but with the irritating absence of answers and solutions (!) . What's the point in composing personal examinations without any achievable , certified solutions ? How can I know I am right ? I recommend authors to annex a booklet/extra pages with the correct answers , along with a full description of the way to the solution plus explanations - if you include such a tutorial tool in your book - do it right .

   Excluding the last disadvantage , I'm most pleased with this book , and would recommend it for anyone who is interested in environment and its protection problems




3. i ordered this book for a class, but the class ended up being cancelled so i returned the book since i didn't need it anymore. the return process was simple and amazon credited the money back to my account very quickly. very good service!



4. Purchased for an Eviro Econ Course. Book covers most topics, weak on valuation. Full of typos. Discussion of many topics very convoluted. Not an easy read.

1 comments about Escaping the Resource Curse (Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia: Challenges in Development and Globalization).

1. This valuable book by leading economists makes an uncompromising case for doing something, immediately, about the devastating effects of international resource extraction on nations and their economies. The book focuses almost exclusively on oil. Certainly, the national and international oil corporations have much to answer for, including massive corruption, local wars, unbelievable levels of environmental rapine and wreckage, and above all massive political distortion in the direction of totalitarianism and non-transparency. The picture that gradually emerges is not pretty. Big Oil is the de facto ruler of several countries, and they are typically totalitarian and characterized by considerable inequity; many are violence-torn. In a few countries, however, national governments have been able to control their oil and their oil industries. Norway and Scotland may have had an easy time because of age-old social institutions that gave them leverage, but the surprising success of places like Oman at dealing with oil deserves more attention.
   The book is best at detailing economic and political-economic solutions, starting with transparency, which many of the authors argue is the most basic need. Authors discuss economic problems and benefits with oil funds (as in Alaska), various kinds of contracts, various ownership systems, and various types of rule systems.
   This book is basic, and sobering, reading for anyone who worries about the global economy. It is also basic and sobering for anyone who believes that "the free market" or anything resembling it operates in today's world. The oil corporations are either outright governmental ones (as in Mexico, Indonesia, China, and much of the Middle East) or parastatal, former parastatal, or de facto parastatal firms like British Petroleum, Shell (nee Royal Dutch Shell), and ExxonMobil (a de facto parastatal under the Bush regime). The U.S. subsidizes big oil, directly and indirectly, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. One indirect subsidy is allowing energy companies to pollute and warm the globe. Big oil has considerable power over whole governments in most oil-producing states. "Corruption" is too mild a word. Yet, much modern political analysis turns on concepts like "neoliberalism," implying that the free market is advancing and governments are losing power. The exact opposite is happening: governments and corporations are fusing and taking over more and more power.
   The book has some problems. First and worst, it shows the limits of economics. It identifies the economic problems, correctly labels them as part of a wider political problem, and then leaves it to the politicians. There is some rather ad hoc concession to the obvious problem of how to get the politicians on board. Revolutions haven't worked; militant governments like the Chavez administration in Venezuela don't seem to be solving it. What to do?
   Second, oil is unique in some ways, though typical in others, and doesn't always make for policies that apply across the board. One wishes there had been at least one chapter on forests, international logging firms, and deforestation--a worse problem than oil in Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, and many other countries.
   Third, the book pussy-foots around the case of the United States. The US government under oilmen G. W. Bush and Richard Cheney has been essentially an arm of big oil, and has had all the problems noted herein for the Third World. Consider the infamous secret meeting--the minutes still held secret--in which Cheney and energy company leaders determined energy policy for the Bush tenure. As of this writing, Bush and Cheney are desperately trying to jam through yet more executive decrees giving away vast tracts and privileges to big oil--in defiance of economic sense, let alone environmental concerns. If, as appears, the United States is more or less in the same boat as Equatorial Guinea and Angola, the world is really over an oil barrel, and the need for a serious look at political solutions is all the greater. One hopes that Obama will fix the situation, but he has his work cut out for him.
   The dominance of giant primary-production interests--big oil, logging, mining, agribusiness, and all--over whole nations and nation-blocs is the great phenomenon of our time. I have been worried for 40 years about its steady increase, and am glad to see that the economists have finally caught up with me. People listen to economists; in the last 200 years they have taken over from philosophers as the people whose words shape nations and empires. For too long they have been braying about free enterprise (as if it existed), and saying that any and all "development" is an unmixed blessing, no matter what happens to ordinary people and their environments and livelihoods. This book is part of a major, and long-awaited, countercurrent that is correcting those views. Let's hope the turnaround is not too late.

No comments about Economic Development, 4th Edition.

5 comments about Global Crises, Global Solutions.

1. I enjoyed Bjorn Lomborg's latest work as a thought provoking alternative to conventional wisdom on different aspects of globalisation. Unfortunately, much of the scientific and political community have become prisoners to theories which have dubious merit. They are followed more out of political correctness and the prevailing winds of public opinion, than research and testing.
   
   By including other experts who provide alternative opinions and challenge each other, Lomborg has followed the true spirit of scientific method - development of a theory and testing it through falsification. It is a shame that some purported scientists have tried to silence him in a similar way to Galileo. Poor science leads to inadequate policy.
   
   The book is a worthy successor to the Environmental Sceptic and reflects a growing concern in the scientific community about the need for more rigorous research and debate on key issues. It's content is well laid out.
   
   Clearly, the amount of material is not designed for reading in one session. However, it is a valuable resource book suited to those interested in entering into the debate on key global issues. You can pick an individual topic and obtain a good grounding in it.
   
   I look forward to Bjorn Lomborg's next offering.



2. Most people never think about the unavoidable tradeoffs involved in ameliorating social problems. With opportunity costs in mind, may we must dedicate ourselves to a better world.
   
   I have two respectful criticisms:
   
   1. If people focused only on the problems that we could do most to solve then that would reduce the pressure to solve problems. However rational it might seem to shift all foreign aid from funding education to funding AIDS prevention, the result would probably be less total aid. The way politics works, one big problem is sometimes treated less seriously than two problems that are half as big.
   
   2. It is difficult to quantify any of these problems, but some of them, like global warming, are much harder to quantify. The "worst case scenario," unlikely as it may be, has the potential to do such incredible damage, that we need to act on it. Reducing global warming might be conceived of as an insurance policy, whereas preventing AIDS is more likely an investment in mutual funds.



3. why arn't global politics based on these arguments? it's a pleasure to read the scientific arguments that lomborg uses to validate his claims. it's a shame that we cannot organise the solutions to make this world a better place for a lot of people at no expense to our own prosperity. all the hard (econometrical) stuff is almost easy to read.
   next year i'll read it again and see how far we are...



4. This book appears at the first look about economy. It is not. Its starting premise is the question: if you have limited resources and have to prioritize, what would you do in our global warming situation. It is a hard
   headed treatment of the subject matter by a multitude of subject experts. Their complete set of policy proposals then evaluated by eight of the world top economists.
   It is interesting, how fast the discussion veers off after discussing the economics into the very conditions enabling or blocking the desirable economic developments, such as conflicts, communicable diseases, sanitation and trade barriers just to mention a few.
   The book can be read on two different level.For casual reader and policy maker most the numbers are avoidable and still be a very readable and very thoughtful and interesting material. For those, who want hard numbers and hard details, that is provided too, but not necessary for understanding.
   This is the multicolored, multifaceted work of many dedicated individuals who - by the work they are dedicated to perform - are forced to set priorities in expending limited resources. I was surprised by their reasoning, and I trust, so will you be.



5. Global Crises, Global Solutions; edited by Bjorn Lomborg, who brought us The Environmental Skeptic, has produced a collection of articles where experts attempt to prioritize which global problems should be dealt with, and how they should be solved. Although an excellent idea, the actual writing is extremely academic and not very easy to read. Essentially, the articles are a series of cost-benefit analyses on specific problems of global warming, conflict, communicable disease, etc. I am not an economist, and found the writing to be almost impenetrable at times, because the authors assume the reader has a very firm understanding of economics and economic jargon. Four stars for intent, only three stars for readability.

5 comments about Downhill Slide: Why the Corporate Ski Industry is Bad for Skiing, Ski Towns, and the Environment.

1. This book should be required reading for people, skiers and non-skiers alike, who patronize ski resorts. DOWNHILL SLIDE exposes what really drives the continuing expansion of ski resorts -- and it isn't skiing. Clifford focuses on the "Big Three", the publically-traded corporations that control a large chunk of all the resorts in North America.

   Although actual ski-run usage (including ski boarders) has been flat for a decade, resorts continue to bombard the US Forest Service with requests for more public land to build ski runs on. Why would they need more runs if the number of skiers is static? To build more condos and "ski villages" around. Clifford says that these companies are theme park/real estate developers masquerading as sports facilities.

   The resorts are marketed as year-round recreation sites in order to keep the condos full of consumers for the retail establishments in the artifical "villages". The chapter entitled "Potemkin Villages and Emerald Cities" ought to bring a blush to the faces of those who sneer at Disneyland, but gush over the quaint shops and interesting restaurants at places like Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, or Whistler.

   Why should we care that big corporations are peddling phoney "life experiences" in the heart of our public lands? Because Clifford says these bogus communities that are springing up in the most scenic parts of our national forests are environmental disaster sites. The thin mountain air is ill-equipped to cope with large new sources of pollution. Access roads and boundary fences interfere with wildlife. Clifford describes starving elk herds kept from their grazing areas by the fences around ranchettes put up by clebrities attracted to the Aspen lifestyle. Snowmaking equipment gobbles up enourmous quantities of energy and water. There are now sixteen golf courses in the arid Vail valley (those summer visitors must have recreation). In order to keep them green Vail Corporation appropriated the water rights of an indigenous town, Minturn. The large staff necessary to provide the amenities at the rustic magic kingdoms must commute from affordable housing in places like Minturn, often 50 or more miles away.

   I quit downhill skiing in the early 70's, but since then have been a non-skiing customer at many of the resorts mentioned by Clifford -- Stratton, Stowe, Vail, Aspen, Sun Valley, Teton Village, Deer Park, and Snowbird. Never again. Skiers may be able to square their love of the sport with galloping environmental degradation, but non-skiers don't need to be party to it.




2. This is the kind of book there should have been more of forty years ago; then we might not be in this fix.

   Clifford sketches the transformation of the ski industry from a quaint and healthy alternative to gambling and drinking in the 19th and early 20th centuries, to a monster industry in the 21st, still healthy but not so quaint, that gives drinking and gambling fierce competition for discretionary dollars in our nation's mountain towns.

   As mining and logging was gradually phased out, the focus shifted to recreation, changing charming towns into mere appendages of mega-resorts whose reason for being is the hawking of overpriced real estate, overpriced equipment, overpriced food, overpriced lift tickets-- and in the summer overpriced greens fees and tickets to film and music festivals. In most cases the resorts' gouging rest upon a firm foundation of reasonably priced public land leases, usually involving the US Forest Service, an agency of the Dept of Agriculture.

   This last detail presents a problem for Clifford and his publisher, Sierra Club Books, For as logging and mining revenues to the USDA decline, it is hesitant to raise too sharply the rents or regulations on its new, relatively clean tenants, the resort operators. When Clifford makes the case for saving elk or lynx habitat the Forest Service is no doubt sympathetic, but probably a lot more interested in saving its own budget, and all the jobs that it supports. And a ski run, while not ideal, is a much better place for wildlife to thrive than what's left after a mining company extracts ore.

   In Colorado there is a pair of sites, both mentioned in DOWNHILL SLIDE: Copper Mtn. Ski Area, and just 5 miles up the road, the mothballed Climax Molybdenum Mine. Copper Mtn has cut down some trees for ski runs and probably uses too much water for snowmaking and doesn't build housing in its "village" for non-rich people--but these are all things that can be fixed. At Climax what is left is a gray, treeless wasteland of slag heaps and tailing ponds. Half a mountain has been eaten away and the leftover sludge sluiced onto a vast flat area resembling a parking lot, into which you could fit dozens of parking lots as big as the one at Copper. Clifford spends many pages criticizing Copper and its owner, Intrawest Corp, but cites Climax only in a lone paragraph as a company which paid a good wage to its employees.

   It seems to me that authors and publishers of perceptive and thoughtful books such as this one ought to propose real solutions to problems they elucidate. For example, why not build low cost employee housing for Copper Mtn on top of the wasteland at Climax? Anything, but anything they built, even Bauhaus, would be an improvement over what is there now. Looking at a map, one sees that a high speed quad could be run about 3 miles from this proposed employee housing to the top of Copper Mtn, thus cutting down on the commuter traffic from Leadville. The illegal workers discussed in Chapter 9 could realize the all-too-often elusive American Dream of skiing to work.




3. it is clearly evident that clifford did a tremendous amount of research for this book and that makes it a truly interesting read. although he was a little too biased at times, he gives a thoughtful and unique perspective on the current status and future ramifications of the ski industry.



4. Great read, exceptionaly well resurched, gets a bit slow at the end, keep an open mind as could be a bit one sided makes the corporations seem a little worse than they realy are, written in 2000 but still right on in 2006. Applies the world over not just the in the USA.



5. Although this book can be read like a big negative, it is very insightful. There are likely to be some positive affects of development which the author does not spend time describing and definitely comes across as having an agenda, but for the curious it is a great read. I was unable to put the book down until I was finished!

4 comments about How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place.

1. It appears that Lomborg has reverted to his childhood idealism. Let me don his former mantle as a skeptic.
   
   The Wikipedia brief definition of economics is the "science which studies human behavior as a relation between scarce means having alternative uses," or, "how people seek to satisfy needs and wants." Lomborg's authors' equations are all reduced to a cost-benefit analysis. A life saved, or a disease prevented, represents an economic benefit and costs avoided. In the simplest application, if the cost per case of treating a curable disease such as syphilis were $1000, and the cost per capita of inoculating against it were $100, and the incidence were 20%, the equation would be:
   Cost per capita of inoculations: $100
   Cost of not inoculating: $1000 × .2 = $200
   Assuming the costs would be borne in the same timeframe, the return on investment for inoculation would be 2 for 1, or 200%
   
   At the most profound level, the logic of human population is non-economic. Not only is doing so morally repugnant to many, there are vast practical difficulties assigning economic value to value human life. Humans are inexpensive to reproduce but costly to maintain. Human beings are unique. A unique set of future economic costs and returns, could be computed for each of us, based on native ability, education, social and work situations, health and remaining lifetime. Not only must the calculation be unique, but also be wildly approximate. Even before taking externalities into account, Lomborg is making a twofold error. He is presuming that human life can be assigned a monetary value, and that such value can be fairly accurately estimated.
   
   Lomborg's economists make projections about unknowable costs and benefits. Especially when betting on future technology, such assumptions can be off by orders of magnitude. What will oil cost in ten years? Solar energy? Estimates vary extravagantly. Such variability renders his computed returns of investment, mostly in the range of 150-200%, essentially meaningless.
   
   The unstated assumption is that the world knows how to define its needs and to communicate them to Lomborg's economists.
   Their apparent assumption is that the highest good, for which economists should strive, is
   1) saving a maximum of human lives. Possible alternatives might be:
   2) minimizing human suffering
   3) maximizing human fulfillment, as per the Maslow triangle
   4) maximizing the economic life of the Earth's resources.
   5) maximizing humanity's potential for achievement, per Charles Murray
   6) ensuring humankind's long term survival
   All of these formulations are consistent with the existentialist, Darwinian/ Dawkinsian view that mankind is no more than the product of eons of blind evolution. The number would expand dramatically with the admission of teleological arguments advanced by the religious. Even accepting the existential premise that humankind has no purpose, Lomborg must confront the fact that the decision to commit $50 billion to the betterment of mankind involves value judgments. Gates and Buffet, if not Lomborg, are setting themselves up as gods. How will they shape their creation?
   
   Lomborg's finding that the best uses of $50B will be to control HIV/AIDS and malaria assumes alternative 1) above: maximizing human life. It doesn't ask the question of what becomes of those lives. How do those people live? What do they do? Even today the answer is bleak. Traditional small scale agriculture village life cannot support the population densities that even primitive medicine have created. The poor of the Southern hemisphere, especially Africa, are moving to the cities, which have no work for them. The physical, social, educational and judicial infrastructures that would support industry just don't exist. Grafting them from the European model didn't work, and there is no indigenous model of social organization above the tribal level. Even today there is an immense press of immigration towards Europe, one which rightfully scares many Europeans including Lomborg's fellow Danes.
   
   The Danes and the Dutch built prosperous societies with far fewer resources than most developing countries enjoy. I would propose that Lomborg consider, as an alternative, using the $50B in an attempt to build a successful civil societies in the Middle East and Africa. Intelligent man that he is, he should reply that it is impossible. Aid programs, the World Bank, the IDB and a host of volunteers and NGOs over the past century have demonstrated that it can't be done. Intelligent man that he is once again, he should reflect on why these effort haven't worked, and then on the unintended consequences of his program to reduce disease there.
   
   Before enabling population growth, researchers should determine why some parts of the world cannot organize the agriculture and industry to support the present populations. UNESCO and others believe it is a want of education. Lynn and Vanhanen believe it is a want of the intellect required to absorb education. If education can be the foundation for civil society, the balance of the $50B would be well spent there. If curing AIDS and malaria will only exacerbate Europe and the West's own problems, the money might be better spent on projects Lomborg considers less promising, such as reducing global warming.
   
   Lomborg is talking about the deployment of money earned in the West, by western men, benefiting from our western values and heritage. It is liberalism that fosters the altruistic desire to better the state of the world. Would it not, however, be perverse if that altruism contributed to western society's own demise?



2. This book may have a catchy title but it deals with many serious problems. It is an abridged edition of "Global Crises, Global Solutions," a work which brought together recommendations of the Copenhagen Consensus. The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus was an international meeting held in Copenhagen, Denmark, and included a debate among 38 of the world's top economists and an expert panel of eight top economists, each of whom prepared a paper on various global problems which were then presented to the whole group for discussion and criticism. The main question put to the conference was certainly a timely one: "If we had an extra $50 billion to put to good use, which problems would we solve first?" Hence the title of the book.
   
   The expert panel inquired into nine global challenges in an order of importance and presented proposals for addressing these challenges. They were guided "predominately by consideration of 'economic costs' and 'benefits'" -- something one would expect from economists considering these issues. The challenges include climate change, the spread of communicable diseases, conflicts and civil wars, access to education, poor governance and corruption, malnutrition and hunger, population migration, sanitation and access to clean water, and subsidies and trade barriers. A tenth challenge dealt with international financial instability, but the panel chose not to come to a view about any proposals to recommend.
   
   The challenge which ranked first of concern to the Copenhagen group was within the area of communicable disease, specifically controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS through new measures of prevention. The estimated cost of this investment was set at $27 billion, more than half of the $50 billion limit. In second place was providing micronutrients, which fell into the malnutrition and hunger category, at a suggested cost of $12 billion. Next was trade liberalization in the subsidies and trade barriers category (minimal cost), then control of malaria within the communicable disease category. These were chosen as the four best opportunities to change the world at this time. Population migration and climate change challenges were at the bottom of the list of proposals. In the book a chapter is devoted to each of the nine major categories and each includes an introduction by an expert or experts, followed by a summary of opposing views by other participants.
   
   As I was reading through the book, I found myself in a constant dialogue with the various writers and with the whole project in general, asking questions and challenging the ranking. I questioned why the HIV/AIDS proposal, for instance, ranked number one. I questioned why the issue of conflicts and civil wars was not ranked at all; it wasn't even included in the ranking table. I questioned why poor governance and corruption was ranked only ninth, below the proposals in the sanitation and access to clean water category. I would have ranked poor governance and corruption as number one or two and would have ranked conflicts and civil wars right before or after it. Why was I so far off from the ranking priorities of these economists?
   
   Then it dawned on me. These were economists! They were all economists! They looked at these challenges from the viewpoint of economists, primarily considering cost-benefit ratios and so forth. Then I recalled something from Lomborg's introduction to the book. He had written: "Why were all the experts economists? Many have questioned this. The goal for the Copenhagen Consensus was to set priorities using the expertise of economists to set economic priorities." And that explained it. I am not a trained economist. I was trained as a political scientist and I was looking at political priorities. From my perspective, little can be achieved regarding disease prevention, access to education, malnutrition and hunger, sanitation and access to clean water, and such, until a political situation is formatted and stabilized. My concern, therefore, would naturally be toward the categories of poor governance and corruption and conflict and civil wars and suggesting proposals to resolve those issues -- first.
   
   This, of course, has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong, or who possesses the "true" program for making the world a better place. It's a matter of one's perspective. The economists were quite correct in looking at solutions from a cost-benefit point of view. I needed to change my perspective. And the major contribution of this book to my thinking is that it forced me to do so. It didn't take me long to realize that with "only" $50 billion to spend, I would run out of money very fast if I spent it on trying to bring about good governance and eliminate political corruption throughout the world. My ranking would have been "impractical" and most likely doomed to failure. After all, the American government's war and reconstruction in Iraq is costing billions of dollars a month! (And not currently achieving all that much, either.)
   
   So I read back through the book again with a different attitude, adopting a different mindset. I then decided if any realistic, substantial change in the world is to come about, it would have to materialize along the line that these economists had suggested. If we only have $50 billion to spend, then we probably ought to spend it on those goals that can be realistically achieved and these economists were approaching things more realistically than I initially was. If we can prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS by spending $27 billion on the problem, then I say "Go for it!" If we can solve a part of the malnutrition and hunger problem by spending $12 billion, then I say "Let's do it!"
   
   This is an excellent book for anyone who wonders: "If I only had $50 billion to spend, how would I make the world a better place to live?" This is a thought-provoking book which will force readers to rethink their priorities and values, and may provide them with a new perspective toward the very real challenges we all face today in the international arena.



3. This book makes plausible and somewhat thought-provoking claims about how an altruist ought to spend money to provide the most benefit to the needy. It concludes that high priorities should include control of HIV, malaria, malnutrition, and trade barriers.
   It appears to come close to being a good book. It addresses fairly good questions about important issues. Unfortunately, it has been simplified for readability to such an extent as to prevent it from accomplishing much. Its arguments aren't sufficiently detailed or backed by references for me to evaluate them. So they were probably intended to be accepted as a result of the authors' authority. But their credentials leave plenty of room for doubt about how much deference their authority deserves.
   So I'm left unsatisfied, and highly uncertain whether I ought to read the more detailed version of this book (Global Crises, Global Solutions).



4. This books reviews the outcomes of the so-called Copenhagen consensus, in which a panel of distinguished economists try to rank the policy solutions to the most important problems that face the world today in terms of their costs and benefits. The problems include climate change, hunger and malnutrition, preventable diseases, conflicts and civil wars etc. The book gives a short outline of each proposed policy presented by experts in the field, then a critical evaluation of each policy and finally a comment of the resulting ranking.
   
   This is an interesting work for several reasons. First, if you are not familiar with the Copenhagen Consensus the book is guaranteed to provoke you. The core idea is at the same time simple and extremely controversial (see below), as is the actually produced ranking. Second, because each chapter treats one problem presented and criticized by experts, it is a good opportunity to become a little bit of an expert yourself.
   I say 'a little bit' because the chapters are severely truncated from the earlier, complete version of this book, and leave many open questions. Reading it is therefore rather unsatisfactory at times. At the same time the text is often dry. Saying that this is a popular version that is aimed at the general public solves the first issue but makes the second more salient. Anyway, these presentational issues aside, it is a rewarding shortcut to an important work of global citizenship.
   
   As for the central idea behind the Copenhagen Consensus: I sympathize greatly with it (although I can find some fault with its execution). In this age where everybody talks about globalization, it is about time that somebody took an integrated view to the world's problems. Since it is clear that there is not enough money to solve them all now, a pragmatic approach like this is exactly what is needed.
   
   Some critics object that cost benefit-analysis is demeaning when talking about human life. I think what they really mean is that the costs and benefits that they find important have not been included. Of course cost benefit-analysis has its problems that are also apparent in this book. It fails when uncertainties become too big, and the impact of some problems on future generations is just very hard to estimate. It also has to rely on valuations of human life that are in some instances very controversial.
   
   But the critics have to face the fact that there are no completely satisfactory solutions to these issues. Does that mean we should do nothing? I think that the setup of the conference, based on a discussion of experts that have to convince a jury of economists (experts in cost-benefit judgements), does a good job at minimalizing concerns of inclusiveness and to a lesser extent valuation. It may also interest critics of the economist's panel to know that a panel of international and interdisciplinary students came up with almost exactly the same ranking as the economists did.
   
   What I do find puzzling is the amounts of money allocated to each project. In the setup, each project has a cost chosen by the expert, and can be either wholly adopted or not adopted at all. It would have made more sense to sketch how much can be accomplished by allocating different amounts to each problem and then let the experts decide on the final amounts. Otherwise, a good start, let's hope to see more on this!

1 comments about Making Aid Work (Boston Review Books).

1. I previously read and reviewed another intriguing release from MIT's Boston Review Press (God and the Welfare State, also recommended) as it was a very thought provoking treatment of its subject. So, to see if that work was going to be indicative of the series, I picked this one next based on the topic.
   
   To start out, this is a very narrowly focused work. It does not treat the entire subject of international aid. Rather, it approaches the question under the basic assumption that aid does in fact work. If you are looking for a broad treatment, you will have to consult other authors for the other side of the dialogue.
   
   The book's format more resembles a panel discussion than a social science text. The main contributor, Abhijit Banerjee, asks various respected authors for their opinions on one of his thoughtful dissertations about how to "make aid work". The various and often disagreeing points of view add depth to the field and invoke historical, practical, political and emotional considerations of the topic. For this alone, the book is definitely worth the reading. However, it adds a collateral discussion on research design.
   
   The way the various authors, especially Banerjee, identify and discuss the limitations of his research is refreshing; especially in a topic that does have significant political overtones. Banerjee not only brings up the limitations to his designs that he identified, but he also discusses the limitations brought forth in peer review. Some he dismisses and others he embraces; but how he incorporates these research design issues into the work is exceptional. I recommend it to anyone interested in bettering their ability to conduct or evaluate quasi-experimental research design for any social science.
   
   I only have two issues with the book. The first is, as I mentioned earlier, it stands on the premise that aid does work. I would like to see the same level of discussion put behind a treatment that suggests aid does NOT work. Second, I am aware that this is meant to be in a discussion format. However, the absence of footnotes and source data for the large number of stated facts is irritating and disappointing. Any scholarly work regardless of format should include references.
   
   All in all this is an excellent work. If you are interested in the aid field or in quasi-experimental research design then this will be a very rewarding and quick read for you.

1 comments about Medical Tourism in Developing Countries.

1. If you want to know Medical Tourism from an economist point of view and the implications for everyone in the health and tourism business, this is the book to get. The authors really did their work. The have a wealth of information for those who are involved in these industries. However, it is not the book to read if you are planning of becoming a medical tourist yourself. There are other books for that particular purpose.