Print | Cite this |

Email |

Copy link |

Translate document from:

S e le c t la n g u a g e

Mark Document

Other available formats: Abstract Find more documents like this:

How to Get the Biggest Bang for 10 Billion Bucks Bjorn Lomborg. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jul 28, 2008. pg. A.15

Abstract (Summary)
While this approach would do little to reduce the number of small events, such as "routine" bombings or political assassinations, it could significantly impede the spectacular attacks that involve a large amount of planning and resources. (c) 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

If you had a spare $10 billion over the next four years, how would you spend it to achieve the most for humanity? This is a small amount compared to rich-government budgets. But if we could set aside an extra $10 billion, we could achieve an awful lot. Would you spend your money tackling diseases like malaria, HIV and tuberculosis, which claim millions of lives each year? Would you battle hunger and malnutrition? What about climate change, which many believe is the biggest challenge facing the planet? To get the most bang for your buck -- and ensure that your generosity does the greatest good for the largest number of people -- you will need to prioritize, weighing up the costs and benefits of different options. Unfortunately, we too often focus on the most fashionable spending options, rather than the most rational. Spending an extra dollar cutting C02 to combat climate change generates less than one dollar of good, even when we add up all the economic and environmental benefits. In contrast, a dollar spent on research and development into cleaner energy technology generates $11 of economic good. If that dollar was spent combating heart disease in the third world, it would achieve more than twice that again. Copenhagen Consensus commissioned eight of the world's top economists to identify the global challenges that can be solved most cost-effectively. Over the coming weeks, we will be challenging decision makers and opinion leaders to weigh in on this debate. We also encourage you to go to OpinionJournal.com and respond to this article with your own priorities.

But first, our economists describe how much your extra dollar can achieve in a few areas: TRANSNATIONAL TERRORISM (This section is deleted for AREC 365.) CLIMATE CHANGE (This section is deleted for AREC 365.) DISEASES Life expectancy is decreasing in some parts of the world. Ten million children will die this year in poor nations. This figure would be just one million if child mortality rates were the same as in rich countries. The hurdle is not just poverty -- some poor nations have reasonably good health conditions -- but getting cheap treatment and prevention methods to the Third World. There are many ways that we could spend a little money very wisely to make a big difference. Some health problems receive a lot of publicity. Investment in other areas we hear less about could make a big difference -- such as heart disease in developing nations. Cheap drugs, widely available in rich countries, can manage two major components of cardiovascular risk: hypertension and high cholesterol levels. Simple drugs can also be highly effective in reducing mortality among the millions of adults world-wide who already have some form of vascular disease or diabetes. In poor countries, where heart disease represents more than a quarter of the death toll, these cheap drugs are often unavailable. Spending just $200 million getting them to poor countries would avert 300,000 deaths each year. The lower burden on health systems, and the economic benefits, mean that an extra dollar spent on heart disease in a developing nation would achieve $25 worth of good. Much more could be done to reduce the scourge of communicable diseases. In poor countries, malaria will claim more than one million lives this year -- most of them among children under five. Measures to reduce its transmission are simple: more bed nets, preventive treatment for pregnant women, and more indoor spraying with DDT. Treating malaria is becoming harder because of growing resistance of the malaria parasite to the cheapest, most common antimalarial drugs. Some poor nations cannot afford the new artimisinin combination therapies that work best, and need financial support. It makes sense to combine prevention options like bed nets with subsidies on the new treatments for poor nations. Spending $500 million would save 500,000 lives a year -- most of them children. Each dollar spent on ensuring people are healthier and more productive would generate $20 in benefits. (Figures based on research by Dean Jamison, U.S. National Institutes of Health.)

HUNGER The food crisis has reminded us that hunger and malnutrition is a daily reality for many in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Malnutrition in mothers and their young children will claim 3.5 million lives this year. Global food stocks are at historic lows. Food riots have erupted in West Africa and South Asia. Progress is distressingly slow on the United Nations' goal of halving the number of hungry people by 2015. Individual tragedy and national hardship go hand in hand. Shortened lives mean less economic output and income. Hunger leaves people more susceptible to disease, requiring more health-care spending. Those who survive the effects of malnutrition are less productive; physical and mental impairment means children benefit less from education. There is an obvious focus in improving the quantity of food consumed in developing countries. But it is also vital to improve the quality of diets, especially for children. Eighty percent of the world's undernourished children are in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. There are massive benefits from increasing the micronutrients that are lacking in poor communities' diets. Providing micronutrients -- particularly vitamin A and zinc -- to 80% of the 140 million or so undernourished children in the world would require a commitment of just $60 million annually, a small fraction of the billions spent each year battling terrorism or combating climate change. The economic gains from improved productivity and a lower burden on the health system would eventually clear $1 billion a year. Every dollar spent, therefore, would generate economic benefits worth $17. Investing in research to make technological improvements to developing-country agriculture provides the opportunity to improve access to micronutrients. It also reduces the cost of food by increasing the incomes of landless laborers. Biofortification can be achieved through genetic modification, or through other methods. Spending $60 million a year would be enough to develop two staple crops such as rice and wheat fortified with micronutrients for about 40 countries across South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The improved nutrition would lead to higher productivity and fewer health problems. Each extra dollar spent would generate economic benefits worth $16. (Figures based on research by Susan Horton, Wilfrid Laurier University.) Finding the most cost-effective ways to tackle the world's problems is no simple challenge and should not be left to professional economists alone. Please go to OpinionJournal.com to add your voices to this important debate about prioritization. --Mr. Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus. For more information please visit www.copenhagenconsensus.com.