The world’s best investment: Vitamins for undernourished children, according to top economists
Climate change is a reality but apparently the Kyoto Protocol might not be the most cost-effective way of addressing it. Bjorn Lomborg argues that we are better of spending our funds on saving lives than on saving the planet. The Copenhagen Consensus 2008 aims to priorities a series of proposals for dealing with ten great global challenges. These challenges are: Air pollution, Conflicts, Diseases, Education, Global Warming, Malnutrition and Hunger, Sanitation and Water, Subsidies and Trade Barriers, Terrorism, Women and Development. Bjorn Lomborg and his team of 50 leading economist, including 5 Nobel Laureates winners, were asked what the best way to advance global welfare was and in doing so have tried to rank the world’s global challenges using cost-benefit analysis.
Meanwhile, other development economist like Jeffrey Sachs think it is misleading to present action on global warming, malaria or nutrition as either-or options, and some other critics of the attempt say factors such as social justice, ecological stewardship and political acceptability are also important and very difficult to price. Lomborg however argues that whereas there are other issues that matter as well as a cost-benefit analysis you need to put prices and values on things as only then is it possible to make informed choices. “Too often, it’s the most photogenic and PR-friendly options that get priority. We want to step back and ask what’s actually most worthwhile.”
Ten challenge papers, commissioned from acknowledged authorities in each area of policy, set out proposals for the panel of economists to consideration. Based on the costs and benefits of the solutions, the panel ranked the proposals, in descending order of desirability, as follows:
SOLUTION (CHALLENGE)
1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) (Malnutrition)
2 The Doha development agenda (Trade)
3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) (Malnutrition)
4 Expanded immunization coverage for children (Diseases)
5 Biofortification (Malnutrition)
6 Deworming and other nutrition programs at school (Malnutrition & Education)
7 Lowering the price of schooling (Education)
8 Increase and improve girls’ schooling (Women)
9 Community‐based nutrition promotion (Malnutrition)
10 Provide support for women’s reproductive role (Women)
11 Heart attack acute management (Diseases)
12 Malaria prevention and treatment (Diseases)
13 Tuberculosis case finding and treatment (Diseases)
14 R&D in low‐carbon energy technologies (Global Warming)
15 Bio‐sand filters for household water treatment (Water)
16 Rural water supply (Water)
17 Conditional cash transfers (Education)
18 Peace‐keeping in post‐conflict situations (Conflicts)
19 HIV combination prevention (Diseases)
20 Total sanitation campaign (Water)
21 Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level (Diseases)
22 Microfinance (Women)
23 Improved stove intervention (Air Pollution)
24 Large, multipurpose dam in Africa (Water)
25 Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles (Air Pollution)
26 Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles (Air Pollution)
27 Diesel vehicle particulate control technology (Air Pollution)
28 Tobacco tax (Diseases)
29 R&D and mitigation (Global Warming)
30 Mitigation only (Global Warming)
The results are available at http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com
Is giving away your money undemocratic?
Strategic giving is about values, efficiency, results and impact but it should also be about matching these values with societal needs. Sometimes the latter is missed and this is has on occasion given rise to the question of the “democracy” of philanthropy. One definition of democracy reads as follows:
“government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy)
Truly effective giving considers values, undertakes thorough research and achieves impact. Without a giving strategy it is unlikely that the philanthropist will be successful, without a strategy it is difficult to point out results and hence there is no accountability. In order to assure accountability and democracy the successful philanthropist will engage with the community and beneficiary because how else can results be measured successfully? Hence the conclusion must be that successful philanthropy meeting the needs of the community it is targeting is “democratic” –emphasis on successfully meeting the needs.
