Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Economics
  4. Natural resource and environmental economics
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

5731 results in Natural resource and environmental economics

Page 87 of 287

  • 2.1 - alternative perspective

  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 50-51

  • Summary

    The post-2015 data revolution should fundamentally be informed by a cost and benefit analysis. Targeting development as devised in a final outcome document by the Open Working Group presumes the availability of a range of statistics - most if it only available through survey data. This chapter evaluates the cost of the enabling environment and further recommends that: The best possible cost estimates indicate that if the previous MDG agenda would have been measured it would have cost about $28 billion. Yet, as we know there were gaps in the data and many indicators were never properly measured between 1990 and 2015. A future agenda with 169 targets has an estimated cost that is higher than the total annual spent on official development assistance globally.

  • 12 - Benefits and Costs of the Women's Health Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda

    • By Dara Lee Luca, Economist, Mathematica Policy Research, Massachusetts, USA, Johanne Helene Iversen, Medical Doctor, Advisor for Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, University of Bergen, Norway, Alyssa Shiraishi Lubet, School of Public Health, Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA, Elizabeth Mitgang, Research Specialist, Georgetown University Center on Medical Product Access, Safety, and Stewardship, Washington, DC, USA, Kristine Husøy Onarheim, University of Bergen, Norway, Klaus Prettner, Professor of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany, David E. Bloom, Clarence James Gamble Professor of Economics and Demography, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Massachusetts, USA
  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 244-254

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Economists have long recognized the positive association between population health and income per capita. Traditionally, this association was viewed as reflective of a causal link from income to health. In recent years, robust evidence has been offered in support of the view that the association also reflects a reverse causal link from population health to income. However, this growing body of research has yet to identify the specific and essential role of women's health as a driver of economic growth. We believe that there are strong reasons to believe that female-specific health interventions are a sound investment for promoting economic well-being at both individual and population levels. In particular, we focus on vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), largely motivated by the substantial cervical cancer burden borne by women in resource-poor countries during what is often the most productive years of their lives.

    Background

    Cervical Cancer in a Global Context

    Globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women, with more than a half-million cases diagnosed and more than 200,000 deaths reported every year. The burden of cervical cancer is disproportionately high in the developing world: about 85 percent of cases occur in less-developed countries, where the disease represents the second-deadliest cancer among women (following breast cancer) (Ferlay et al., 2013). The impact of the disease is further accentuated by the young average age at death, often when women are most likely to be bearing children, raising and supporting families, and participating in the workforce (Arbyn et al., 2011). For these reasons, cervical cancer conveys potentially large negative familial and societal externalities, particularly detrimental to children of affected women.

    In developed countries, adequate health system infrastructure, resources, and personnel have reduced the cervical cancer burden substantially, but fundamental challenges remain in developing countries (Gakidou, Nordhagen and Obermeyer, 2008).Virtually all cervical cancer cases are related to HPV infection, a sexually transmitted virus that can cause different types of cancer in both women and men (World Health Organization, 2007). It should be emphasized that the majority of women with HPV do not develop cervical cancer; rather, women become susceptible to developing cervical cancer following HPV infection, and other environmental factors are required for the cancer to develop.

  • Chapter 17 - Benefits and Costs of Digital Technology

  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 295-321

  • Summary

    Expanding affordable access to information communication technologies (ICTs) infrastructure has become a priority for policy makers, both in developing and developed countries, as ICTs are important enablers for social inclusion and economic development. ICT infrastructure has an impact on growth through several channels: productivity gains, enhanced innovation and new ways to market goods and services, employment and firm creation, among others (Pepper et al, 2009). The social inclusion dimension is the potential to offer services (e.g. health, education and e-government, etc.) to all communities, however remote.

  • 22.2 - alternative perspective

    • By Pamela Smith, Associate Professor of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, USA
  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 420-421

  • Summary

    Summary

    The technology transfer goals under consideration by the UN Open Working Group include general and technology-specific targets, as well as goals that are foundational to technology transfers that occur through trade and foreign direct investment. The ultimate goal of these targets is to promote sustainable economic development.

    Pamela J. Smith reviews the technology transfer proposals of Keith E. Maskus and then offers a broader perspective on policy options.

    Maskus proposes two policies that have the potential for increasing technology transfers to developing countries. The first is to increase the ratio of R&D spending as a percentage of GDP in developing countries. Maskus calculates benefitcost ratios for developing and emerging countries corresponding with a range of R&D spending scenarios. He concludes that the proposed policies do not qualify as “strong or phenomenal” priorities for the UN agenda. Smith agrees with this conclusion and that developing countries would benefit more from investing in policies that yield a higher benefit-cost ratio.

    The second policy is to establish “innovation zones.” This would involve offering ten-year visas that permit free mobility of skilled labor among participants in the zones. Maskus calculates benefit-cost ratios for countries that are the source and destination of migrating skilled labor within a North–South zone and South–South zone. He concludes that the proposed policy qualifies as a “phenomenal” priority for the UN agenda. Smith agrees that the technology transfers that would occur within an innovation zone are economically significant, but adds the caveat that benefits and costs vary considerably across source and destination countries of the migrants.

    In Smith's assessment, the Maskus analysis is conservative so as not to overestimate the effects of the policies. Smith also notes two intentional omissions. The first is the omission of international spillovers in the analysis of the R&D spending policy. The second is the omission of human capital spillovers in the analysis of innovation zones. Smith discusses the implications of these omissions, yet concludes that these omissions do not change the basic conclusion regarding the economic significance of the policies and their priority in the UN agenda.

    Smith offers broader perspectives from the literature on policy options that support economic development through technology transfers.

  • 4.2 - alternative perspective

  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 90-90

  • Summary

    Because of the difficulties involved, I sympathize with Fearon and Hoeffler's general approach of trying to highlight certain relevant costs rather than coming up with specific cost-benefit ratios. However, I think the discussion would benefit from a slightly different perspective, taking a further step back to define specific issues of paramount importance together with promising interventions because any attempt to paint a broad picture inevitably becomes somewhat fragmented and superficial. Considering which issues could deliver potentially the highest benefits and be tackled by fairly standardized interventions, I believe the focus should be on common crime and violence.

    The authors correctly stress that deaths from common crime in societies subject to chronically high levels of violence far outweigh mortality from civil and military conflicts. One point overlooked is the heterogeneous nature of both civil conflicts. In particular, because civil conflicts have political origins, it is difficult to conceive of standardized interventions that would be acceptable to all parties. Addressing common crime, on the other hand, would benefit virtually the entire population of affected countries.

    What distinguishes societies subject to chronically high violence is an astonishingly high fatality rate for young men. High levels of common crime seem to be closely connected to socioeconomic conditions and state policy, whereas violence against women and children usually has more of a cultural nature.

    We can think of an “equilibrium level” of crime set by balancing the potential supply of criminals with repressive state policies. Most public security policies focus on the latter side of the equation, but interventions with improved socioeconomic conditions and job prospects can also help. Overall costs of crime can be calculated, but from a policy perspective, we should be comparing marginal benefits to marginal costs, for example, the social value of spending an extra dollar to reduce the likelihood of homicides. To assess this, we can use either marginal willingness to pay or contingent valuation, but these methods can still miss some of the most harmful dimensions of the cost of crime, such as the reduction of the quantity and quality of investment in education. There is also a problem with trying to scale numbers from country to country for comparison, which may not be valid.

  • 23.1 - alternative perspective

    • By Dale Whittington, Professor, Departments of Environmental Sciences & Engineering, and City & Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA, and Manchester Business School, UK
  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 443-443

  • Summary

    Summary

    Guy Hutton's chapter is part of a series of publications from the WHO and World Bank that suggest the benefits of water and sanitation interventions in developing countries are an order of magnitude or more higher than the costs of improved services. However, I challenge this finding on a number of grounds, particularly related to the assumptions made in the economic analysis.

    The benefit-cost analysis rests on two assumptions, that each person's well-being is to count, and count according to their own valuation, and that this is also the valuation placed on the change by society. The challenge is to learn about individuals’ preferences and measure the strength of these in monetary terms, either via the willingness to pay (WTP) for the outcome or the willingness to accept (WTA) compensation to forego the change.

    Some experts are reluctant to measure benefits in terms of expressed preferences because they believe that people do not fully understand either the benefit or the causal relationship between hygiene and health. They are thus inclined to substitute their own assessment of the benefits into the benefit-cost calculation, which creates a challenge for BCA. In simple terms, if the benefit-cost ratio of a WASH intervention is 10:1, or even 20:1 as suggested in the chapter, why don't individuals rush to adopt these interventions?

    The reasonableness of the benefit estimate depends largely on the accuracy of the estimates of time saving, which is what delivers the greatest benefit. Consider one of the sources of time savings – not walking to an open defecation site. If we assume a rural household of two adults and three children, the monthly benefits estimated in the chapter would be about US$5 per month, but would everyone actually change their behavior? In practice, in rural India, there is evidence that many people prefer to practice open defecation, which means that the benefit in the chapter must be considered highly speculative and subject to a high level of uncertainty.

    A similar argument applies to the benefits of avoided mortality. The human capital approach has no theoretical justification; a WTP figure would give a much lower benefit, particularly in poor communities, but some experts are uncomfortable with this. The substitution of expert judgment gives the appearance of greater certainty in the benefit estimates and, in many situations, inflates the economic benefits.

  • Chapter 25 - Good Governance and the Sustainable Development Goals

  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 475-500

  • Summary

    This paper is one of a series focusing on benefit-cost analysis of proposed targets in different sectors, in order to contribute to the discussion with realistic analysis of targets in terms of their likely costs and benefits. As noted above, the proposal to introduce governance targets raises fundamental questions that need to be addressed prior to that of economic costs and benefits. Furthermore, costs and benefits with regard to governance reforms are less amenable to being measured than in other areas, and only general estimations are possible, at best. Thus, this paper will first address several prior issues: the global governance agenda, measurement and data issues, the relationship between governance and development, and the record of governance reform efforts. Then it will assess a subset of proposed targets, with attention to benefit and costs, as well as other criteria, including a number of problems and risks.

  • 10 - Benefits and Costs of the Health Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda

    • By Prabhat Jha, Professor of Economics, Canada Research Chair of Health and Development at the University of Toronto, Canada and Founding Director of the Centre for Global Health Research, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada, Ryan Hum, Special Lecturer, Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada, Cindy L. Gauvreau, Post-Doctoral Fellow/ Economist, Centre for Global Health Research, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada, Keely Jordan, Health Policy Analyst, University of California, San Francisco, USA
  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 219-230

  • Summary

    Introduction

    A variety of development priorities have been proposed for 2030 as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to follow the highly-influential 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These proposed goals cover a wide range of development objectives, including SDG3, “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” Within the overarching health goal, many subgoals have been proposed, some of which are realistic and others that are not (Norheim et al., 2014). Common frameworks to evaluate these disparate goals are required by national governments and global agencies.

    One proposed method to evaluate goals is benefit-cost analyses (BCAs), expressed as some monetary value of the benefits divided by the costs (benefit-cost ratios, or BCR) of achieving these benefits. A BCR greater than one for an assessed intervention indicates that it is socially beneficial compared to the next best use of the same resources. A ranking of interventions by the size of their BCRs is one step in allowing the prioritization according to the relative benefits they provide to society. (Note that a goal with a high societal benefit, such as universal education of girls, might not necessarily have a higher BCR than other interventions). In the case of health, high coverage of individual interventions are seldom achieved without an extensive delivery system comprising community outreach of services, first referral, and specialty hospitals, as well as supportive services for quality, patient safety, monitoring and evaluation, and other services (Jha and Laxminarayan, 2009). Moreover, some interventions (such as immunization) reduce deaths beyond the specific diseases they cover, by, for example, increasing the nutritional standing of children. The impact of increased access through universal healthcare is also not easily quantified through BCA. Therefore, traditional BCA, applied to individual interventions, fails to fully capture the cumulative and synergistic benefits or costs of implementation within a health system and in tandem with other health-promoting activities.

    Thus, overall goals of reducing child and adult mortality are required as an overarching framework target. However, it should also be emphasized that within this framework, careful consideration be given to the specific subpopulation needs for each major age group (0–4, 5–49, and 50–69 years), as they differ in disease patterns.

  • 17 - Benefits and Costs of Digital Technology: Infrastructure Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda

  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 295-319

  • Summary

    Introduction: The Importance of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) for Development

    Expanding affordable access to information communication technologies (ICTs) infrastructure has become a priority for policy makers, both in developing and developed countries, as ICTs are important enablers for social inclusion and economic development. ICT infrastructure has an impact on growth through several channels: productivity gains, enhanced innovation and new ways to market goods and services, employment, and firm creation, among others (Pepper et al., 2009). The social inclusion dimension is the potential to offer services (e.g., health, education, and e-government) to all communities, however remote.

    Sustainable Development Goals and Targets Regarding ICTs

    Millennium Development Goals and Post 2015 Agenda: Where Do the Targets Lie in Terms of ICTs?

    The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has followed up on the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 8F (Develop a Global Partnership for Development), which states: “In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communication technologies.” The ITU uses the following indicators to track this target: telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants, and computers and Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants. For example, Figure 17.1 displays mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants (i.e., mobile voice penetration) in developed and developing regions of the world based on ITU statistics.

    There has been extensive debate of what goals should be included in the Post-2015 Agenda with regard to ICTs. Although covered explicitly in Goal 9 of the June 2014 Outcome Document of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the availability of ICTs also has a bearing on other areas such as lifelong learning and gender equality. Goal 9c states: “Significantly increase access to ICT and strive to provide universal and affordable access to Internet in LDCs [least developed countries] by 2020.” The question is, what is a “significant” increase? In addition, this target seems to imply universal access to the Internet in five years’ time, which may be unrealistic.

  • 2.2 - alternative perspective

  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 52-53

  • Summary

    This perspective explores in greater depth part of the cost-benefit analysis undertaken by Markandya, particularly for Sustainable Development Goal 15.2: By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all type of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests, and increase afforestation and reforestation by x percent globally.

    Although the implementation costs of measures to achieve the Aichi targets have been estimated during a specific program of work, the same is not the case for the benefits. Looking at ecosystem services for both tropical and temperate forest biomes, we find that the largest category for tropical forest is provisioning services (43 percent of value), while for temperate forest 49 percent relates to cultural services (largely recreation).

    The majority of tropical forest valuations use market value type estimates. By contrast, nearly 60 percent of the temperate forest values are from stated preference techniques (contingent valuation, choice experiments). This raises a number of important issues; arguably the key ones with respect to the use of these extant values are passive use values and nonmarginal values.

    The estimates collected for valuation databases typically reflect marginal changes in the provision of ecosystem services. They are not appropriate for estimating the total value of an ecosystem. Put simply, can we defensibly use a $/ha value originally elicited for changing forest extent at one site by 10 ha to value changes totalling thousands of hectares on a global scale? Nevertheless, existing value estimates are likely to be the only reasonable source for global cost-benefit analysis.

    We can estimate benefits on a regional basis by using spatial variables to account for differences. Value functions can be used to allow for the impact of different variables. For example, smaller sites have higher values per hectare, consistent with diminishing marginal utility, and the extent of urban areas within 50 km also increases per ha values of forest. Values across regions also reflect variables such as income levels.

    The total losses from deforestation from 2000 to 2050 reported by Markandya range from US$334 billion to US$1,118 billion, compared to a total undiscounted value of US$1,322 billion implied by the value functions in this perspective.

  • 21 - Benefits and Costs of the Population and Demography Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda

    • By Hans-Peter Kohler, Frederick J. Warren Professor of Demography, University of Pennsylvania, USA, Jere R. Behrman, W. R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Economics and Director of Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania, USA
  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 375-394

  • Summary

    Background

    Prioritizing the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda on Population and Demography requires a recognition that national demographic trajectories are currently more diverse than in the middle and late twentieth century. Wealthy countries of Europe, Asia, and the Americas face rapid population aging, while Africa and some countries in Asia prepare for the largest cohort of young people the world has ever seen. And many of the world's poorest countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, continue to face premature mortality, high fertility, and often unmet need for contraception.

    The Report of the Global Thematic Consultation on Population Dynamics (UNFPA, UNDESA, UN-HABITAT, IOM, 2013; thereafter GTC-PD Report) highlights three central aspects of how population dynamics affect the post-2015 development agenda:

  • Population dynamics are at the center of the main development challenges of the twenty-first century and must therefore be addressed in the post-2015 development agenda.

  • Mega population trends – population growth, population aging, migration, and urbanization – present both important developmental challenges and opportunities that have direct and indirect implications for social, economic, and environmental development.

  • Demography is not destiny. Rights-based and gender-responsive policies can address and harness population dynamics.

    • The GTC-PD Report then groups the specific policy options in four thematic priority areas: high fertility and population growth, low fertility and population aging, migration and human mobility, and urbanization. Closely related recommendations were adopted as part of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Beyond 2014 Global Report (UNFPA, 2014), which is the culmination of a landmark UN review of progress, gaps, challenges and emerging issues in relation to the ICPD Programme of Action. These two reports are important because they are likely to shape the international agenda on population.

    The goal of this chapter is to discuss the post- 2015 development agenda in the area of Population and Demography, focusing primarily on aspects of population size, age structure, and geographic distribution. It is important also to highlight that “population quality,” including human capital such as health and education, is an important further aspect of population dynamics that is essential for addressing the challenges of future population changes and for realizing the benefits of population dynamics for social, economic, and environmental development (Behrman and Kohler, 2014).

  • 13 - Benefits and Costs of TB Control for the Post-2015 Development Agenda

    • By Anna Vassall, Senior Lecturer in Health Economics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 255-265

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The economic case for investment in tuberculosis (TB) control is compelling. TB control has been part of an essential package of health services for most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for decades, based on TB control's relatively high returns. The economic case, put simply, is that TB treatment is low cost and highly effective and on average may give an individual in the middle of their productive life around 20 additional years of life, resulting in substantial economic and health return. Yet, to date, globally TB control is underfunded, both in relative and absolute terms (Floyd et al., 2013). The most recent global estimates suggest a resource gap of around US$2 billion per year (World Health Organization, 2014), with TB receiving less than 4 percent of total development assistance for health (compared to HIV receiving 25 percent, and maternal and child health around 20 percent) in 2011 (Viz Hub).

    Background

    In 2010, TB was ranked 13th in terms of its contribution to the global burden of disease, primarily impacting LMICs and the world's poor (Lozano et al., 2012). Over 9 million individuals fell ill with TB in 2013, and the annual number of deaths from TB was estimated at 1_4 million persons in 2013, which is on par with other major killers such as HIV and malaria (Murray et al., 2014). Around 13 percent of the annual cases of TB and around 30 percent of all TB deaths are among persons living with HIV (Zumla et al., 2013). HIV increases the risk of mortality, and the presentation of TB in those living with HIV is atypical, meaning that TB, in those living with HIV, can be difficult to diagnose (Zumla et al., 2013).

    TB has two stages: latent infection and active TB. Over two billion people worldwide are latently infected, and 5 percent of those develop active TB within 18 months, with a further 5 percent risk of developing active TB over a lifetime. The risk of developing the active form increases substantially after HIV infection. Most TB responds well to standard drug treatment, but there were almost half a million cases of multi-drug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) in 2013, with over 10 percent of these cases being extensively drug-resistant (XDR-TB) in some countries.

  • 3 - Benefits and Costs of the Climate Change Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda

    • By Isabel Galiana, Lecturer, Department of Economics, McGill School of Environment, Montreal, Canada
  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 54-63

  • Summary

    Introduction

    It has been argued that climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity and yet is not explicitly targeted in the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) but falls rather under Goal 7's (Ensure Environmental Sustainability) target 1, “Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources,” and less directly through Goal 8: “Global partnership for development.” Since their implementation in 2000, the MDGs have been shown to be quite successful in mobilizing support for health, hunger, and education. The subprioritization of climate change recognizes an implicit conflict between development, with the energy use (and emissions) it entails, and climate policy. Climate changemitigation in emerging and developing countries could be harmful from a development perspective if it slows economic growth by requiring more costly, low-carbon energy sources (Jakob and Steckel, 2013).

    This chapter discusses and evaluates common and innovative global climate policy targets and metrics within a benefit-cost framework appropriate for use as post-2015 goals. Moreover, it highlights the potential for the UN post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals to acknowledge current technological limitations and developmental objectives facing policy makers and thus identify policies that are regionally acceptable, appropriate, and most important, effective in slowing global warming.

    International Climate Cooperation

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created over a quarter century ago toassess the risks associated with anthropogenic climate change. In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was created to help establish enforceable treaties to “avoid dangerous climate change” through yearly Conferences of the Parties (COPs). The past 26 years of climate negotiations have shown that establishing such an agreement is a highly challenging task. In 1996 the goal of limiting climate change to a 2_C rise in average global temperature came on the scene and has become a key focus of the international climate debate. Despite much media attention and repeated negotiations within the UNFCCC framework, if measured by performance, global climate policy has failed. Since 1990 the globe has witnessed a steady rise in emissions, only halted by the global recession, with carbon dioxide emissions having increased by more than 46 percent.

  • 17.1 - alternative perspective

  • Edited by Bjorn Lomborg, Copenhagen Business School
  • Book:
    Prioritizing Development
    Published online:
    30 May 2018
    Print publication:
    07 June 2018, pp 320-321

  • Summary

    Summary

    Studies have shown that adoption of broadband is associated with faster economic growth via three broad categories of impact: “direct” effects on employment and GDP during investment, “indirect” effects associated with the telecom sector supply chain, and “induced” effects in the wider economy. But, in fact, there are a number of factors specific to each economy that determine overall impact, with institutions and regulations in particular being key enablers to unlock the economic benefits.

    Auriol and Fanfalone make a credible effort to analyze an inherently complex undertaking. The focus on broadband indicators – availability, quality, and affordability – is a valid step forward. However, broadband penetration alone is used to assess costs and benefits, as a proxy of network adoption. Speed is excluded from the list, despite the fact that policy makers around the world are prepared to make considerable investments in faster networks, which they often expect to deliver increased benefits. The analysis presents only a fixed impact across technologies, thus making the cheaper ones score higher in terms of the costbenefit approach. This is not unexpected, but still represents a simplification of the actual situation.

    A common – implicit – assumption in these undertakings is that broadband availability is the same as adoption, which is not necessarily true. Connecting the unconnected yields economic benefits orders of magnitude greater than simply upgrading existing subscribers to higher speeds, especially in the least developed countries (LDC) context. Besides, the marginal impact of broadband in developing countries is never contrasted to the generic effect of the broader global targets. Ideally, these targets should also form part of a wider approach to some key challenges. For example increasing broadband penetration by 10 percent in LDCs can have a range of effects across the post-2015 agenda: reducing poverty (SDG 1), increasing access to education (SDG 4), improving health monitoring, prevent outbreaks of epidemics (SDG 4), and investing in local infrastructure (SDG 9).

    The study builds on projections for developing countries based on evidence from rich economies, which can be misleading. At the same time, it takes a relatively naïve approach in devising broadband targets based on the access medium (fixed or mobile) instead of more cost-effective scenarios that take into account regional population densities and foreseen usage.

Page 87 of 287