P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
This page intentionally left blank
ii
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
HOW TO SPEND $50 BILLION TO MAKE THE WORLD
A BETTER PLACE
In a world fraught with problems and challenges, we need to gauge how to achieve the greatest good with our money. This unique publication provides a rich set of dialogs examining the most serious challenges facing the world today:
r climate change
r communicable diseases
r conflicts and arms proliferation
r access to education
r governance and corruption
r malnutrition and hunger
r migration
r sanitation and access to clean water
r subsidies and trade barriers.
Each problem is introduced by a world-renowned expert who
defines the scale of the problem and examines a range of policy options. Shorter pieces offer alternative positions.
This abridged version of the highly lauded Global Crises, Global Solutions provides a serious yet accessible springboard for debate and discussion on the world’s most serious problems and what we can do to solve them.
Bjørn Lomborg is Adjunct Professor in the Department of Management, Politics, and Philosophy at the Copenhagen Business School.
He is also the author of the controversial bestseller, The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge, 2001).
i
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
ii
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
How to Spend
$50 Billion
to Make the World
a Better Place
Edited by
Bjørn Lomborg
Copenhagen Business School
iii
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521866798
© Copenhagen Consensus Center 2006
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2006
ISBN-13 978-0-511-54069-1
eBook (NetLibrary)
ISBN-13 978-0-521-86679-8
hardback
ISBN-13 978-0-521-68571-9
paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
Contents
Contributors
page vii
Introduction
xi
1 Meeting the Challenge of Global Warming . . . . . . . . . . 1
William R. Cline
CLIMATE CHANGE – OPPONENTS’ VIEWS
14
2 Communicable Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Anne Mills and Sam Shillcutt
COMMUNICABLE DISEASES – OPPONENTS’ VIEWS
33
3 The Challenge of Reducing the Global Incidence
of Civil War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler
THE CHALLENGE OF CONFLICTS – OPPONENTS’ VIEWS
53
4 Toward a New Consensus for Addressing the Global
Challenge of the Lack of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Lant Pritchett
THE CHALLENGE OF LACK OF EDUCATION – OPPONENTS’
VIEWS
71
v
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
vi
Contents
5 The Challenge of Poor Governance and Corruption . . . 77
Susan Rose-Ackerman
THE CHALLENGE OF POOR GOVERNANCE AND
CORRUPTION – OPPONENTS’ VIEWS
90
6 Hunger and Malnutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Jere R. Behrman, Harold Alderman, and John Hoddinott
HUNGER AND MALNUTRITION – OPPONENTS’ VIEWS
108
7 Population and Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Philip Martin
POPULATION: MIGRATION – OPPONENTS’ VIEWS
125
8 The Water Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Frank Rijsberman
THE WATER CHALLENGE – OPPONENTS’ VIEWS
141
9 Subsidies and Trade Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Kym Anderson
SUBSIDIES AND TRADE BARRIERS – OPPONENTS’ VIEWS
160
Expert Panel Ranking
165
Index
175
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
Contributors
Chapter Authors
Harold Alderman is Lead Human Development Economist in the Africa Region of the World Bank, Washington, DC.
Kym Anderson is Lead Economist in the International Trade Unit of the World Bank’s Development Research Group.
Jere R. Behrman is William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor in Economics and Director, Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania.
William R. Cline is Senior Fellow, Institute for International Economics and the Center for Global Development in
Washington, DC.
Paul Collier is Professor and Director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies, Oxford University.
John Hoddinott is Senior Research Fellow in the Food Consumption and Nutrition Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
vii
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
viii
Contributors
Anke Hoeffler is Research Associate of the Centre for the Stud
y of African Economies, Oxford University.
Philip Martin is Professor and Chair, UC Comparative Immigration and Integration Program, University of California, Davis.
Anne Mills is Professor of Health Economics and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
Lant Pritchett is Lead Economist of the Environment and Social Unit at the World Bank.
Frank Rijsberman is Director General, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka; Professor at
UNESCO-IHE, International Institute for Water Education,
Delft, and Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen.
Susan Rose-Ackerman is Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurispru-dence, Yale University, Law School and Department of Political Science.
Sam Shillcutt is Research Fellow in the Health Economics and Financing Programme, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Perspective Paper Authors
Tony Addison is Professor, Deputy Director, Project Director and Senior Research Fellow, World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER) of the United Nations University (UNU).
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
Contributors
ix
Jens Christopher Andvig is Senior Researcher, University of Oslo.
Simon Appleton is Senior Lecturer in Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
Roger B öhning is Director, Programme on Promoting the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work,
International Labour Office, Geneva.
John Boland is Professor Emeritus, Environmental Economics and Policy, Department of Geography and Environmental
Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University.
Jean Cartier-Bresson is Professor of Economics, Université de Versailles, Saint-Quentin en Yvelines.
David Evans is Director, Department of Health System Financing, Expenditure and Resource Allocation (FER), World Health Organisation.
Michael Intriligator is Professor Emeritus of Economics, Political Science and Policy Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, and Senior Fellow, Milken Institute.
Alan Manne (1925–2005) was Professor Emeritus of Opera-tions Research, Stanford University.
Robert Mendelsohn is Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Professor of Economics, and Professor in the School of
Management, Yale University.
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
x
Contributors
Arvind Panagaryia is Professor of Economics and Jagdish Bhagwati Professor of Indian Political Economy, Columbia
University.
Jan Pronk is Professor of International Development Policy, Institute of Social Studies, University of Amsterdam.
Mark Rosenzweig is Mohamed Kamal Professor of Public Policy, at Kennedy School, Harvard University.
Paul Schultz is Malcolm K. Brachman Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Yale University.
Peter Svedberg is Professor of Development Economics, The Institute for International Economic Studies, University of Stockholm.
Jacques van der Gaag is Professor of Development Economics, University of Amsterdam.
Ludger W ößmann is Head of the Department of Human Capital and Structural Change at the IFO Institute of Economic Research, University of Munich.
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
BJØRN LOMBORG1
Introduction
What Should We Do First?2
Each day decisions are made about global political priori-
ties. We choose to support some worthy causes while others are disregarded. Unfortunately, political decisions seldom take into account a comprehensive view of the effects and
costs of solving one problem in relation to another. Priorities are often set in an obfuscated environment involving the conflicting demands of the media, the people, and politicians. Despite all good intentions, the decision-making process is marred by arbitrary and haphazard methods. The
idea behind the Copenhagen Consensus is to render, in the
future, this process less arbitrary, because political decisions should not be made arbitrarily, but should be based on facts and knowledge. The result stemming from the Copenhagen Consensus 2004 is very concrete: a ranked list of real challenges, for real people, in the real world.
1 Director, Copenhagen Consensus Center / Copenhagen Business School.
2 Translated by Gitanjali Kapila.
xi
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
xii
How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place If we had an extra $50 billion to put to good use, which
problems would we solve first? That was the question put to the participants of the Copenhagen Consensus. Using more
than 600 pages of scholarly papers as their point of departure, the participants engaged in an intense scholarly discussion that resulted in a set list of priorities regarding the world’s most challenging problems.
This book constitutes a concrete contribution to the
debate regarding global priorities – the question of how do we tackle the world’s problems, such as where should we
start, and what should be done. The text adumbrates some
of the world’s most pressing challenges, what can be done, how much it will cost, and what benefits will result. Armed with the information contained in these articles, readers
will be in a better position to participate in the discussion of global priorities – and, in the spirit of the Copenhagen Consensus, to generate their own lists.
The articles stem from the international conference, the
Copenhagen Consensus, held in Copenhagen from the 24th
to the 28th of May 2004, where 38 economists threw them-
selves headlong into a debate – one that was both practical and theoretical – on how we can best solve the world’s greatest problems.
The Copenhagen Consensus convened eight distin-
guished economists, each of whom prepared an economics
paper on serious global problems, from hunger and clean
drinking water to disease and climate change. These
eight researchers came to Copenhagen and presented
their results. Additionally, twenty prominent researchers,
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
What Should We Do First?
xiii
engaged to argue against these results, also were in attendance. The expert panel included eight top economists,
among them four Nobel laureates, whose task it was to lis-
ten to all of the arguments, assess the ten areas of inquiry, and prioritize the solutions. This book contains summaries of the nine scholarly papers and rebuttals, all of which are written in language that is easy to understand.
Why were all the experts economists? Many have ques-
tioned this. The goal for the Copenhagen Consensus was to
set priorities using the expertise of economists to set economic priorities. It seems clear that climate issues are best assessed by climate experts, and issues relating to malaria are best evaluated by malaria experts. If we asked a malaria expert or a climate expert to prioritize global warming or
communicable diseases as the most pressing global concern, it would not be difficult to imagine which issue each would find most important. As such, economists were the
featured experts at the Copenhagen Consensus.
The purpose of the Copenhagen Consensus was to build
a bridge between the ivory tower of research and the general public. We need the rational calculations of economists in order to understand how we can best realize compassionate
solutions that will make for a better world. Research should be utilized. Knowledge should be utilized. These facts were taken very seriously at the Copenhagen Consensus.
The task assigned to the expert panel was not easy.
They found that in some areas the information that was
available – upon which they were to base their evaluations –
was inadequate. This applied to education, armed conflict,
P1: JZP
0521866790pre
Printer: cupusbw
CUFX043/Lomborg
0 521 86679 0
May 7, 2006
15:21
xiv
How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place and financial instability. Another important result of the Copenhagen Consensus is that it is clear that there is a need for further research in these areas.
This process is somewhat similar to the one being used
by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
When the Panel first issued its report on the consequences of discharging greenhouse gases, it was evident that the report lacked critical information. This finding led to new research.
When the Panel issued its second and third reports, many
of the original lacunas in the first report were addressed.
This process resulted in creating a better foundation for the decision-making process.
That the task before us is difficult ought not to deter us from attempting it. That we don’t know everything should
not keep us from using what we do know. The material
available to the participants of the Copenhagen Consensus
indicates that a fairly comprehensive knowledge base exists about a host of issues and their possible solutions.
The top economists who participated in the Copenhagen
Consensus exhibited a certain modesty vis- à-vis the difficult task before them. I want to emphasize that the expert panel was not bound in any way. The eight economists made all
decisions, of course – and this, in itself, could be considered the crowning achievement of the Copenhagen Consensus.
However, what is perhaps most surprising is that they were able to come to a consensus. The eight came to a surprising amount of agreement. The Experts Panel Ranking chapter
How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place Page 1