A Case for Higher Public Spending

Ng, Yew‐Kwang; Ng, Siang

doi:10.1057/9780333992777_8

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14 Empirical methods to evaluate well-being include empathic evaluation, quality of life indicators, neuroscience (monitoring of reward centers in the brain), income, questionnaire methods: pairwise comparison tests, willingness to pay (cf. Ng, 2000) a probabilistic health cost, with distribution Θ and mean θ, for the agents well-being.…”

Section: Behavioral Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 Empirical methods to evaluate well-being include empathic evaluation, quality of life indicators, neuroscience (monitoring of reward centers in the brain), income, questionnaire methods: pairwise comparison tests, willingness to pay (cf. Ng, 2000) The agents have then the following information available: effort costs c, health costs Θ, effective transmission probability β(1 − a) and the probability of meeting an infected I N . We also assume that the costs are additive.…”

Section: Behavioral Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a judgement of the form "societal state x is better than societal state y"), we will characterize how an ethical, impartial, eudaimonistic, and individualist observer forms a judgement on the comparative value of two societal states (cf. d'Aspermont in Arrow et al, 2002, Ng, 2000. The following axioms (esp.…”

Section: Value Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Impact on Well-Being of Cognitive Bias about Infectious Diseases

Pestow

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the relationship between bias about infectious disease and well-being. First, we empirically establish the existence and the causes of bias, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. After that we investigate theoretically the effects of bias on well-being. In order to do this, we present a behavioral-epidemiological differential equation model derived from an agent-based model that combines rational choice behavior with infectious disease dynamics. In addition the model is evaluated normatively by an axiomatically characterized model of an ethical, impartial, eudaimonistic and individualist observer. These assumptions imply a new proof for the utilitarian principle. The result is that while increased fear improves purely epidemiological outcomes, the social welfare outcome shows mixed results; which shows that it is not enough to take only epidemiological measures into account when generating policy recommendations. Finally, we draw some practical consequences from the model, argue, as it pertains to the topic, for protective rights against psychological control by the state, and give some outlooks for future research.

show abstract

Section: Behavioral Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 Empirical methods to evaluate well-being include empathic evaluation, quality of life indicators, neuroscience (monitoring of reward centers in the brain), income, questionnaire methods: pairwise comparison tests, willingness to pay (cf. Ng, 2000) The agents have then the following information available: effort costs c, health costs Θ, effective transmission probability β(1 − a) and the probability of meeting an infected I N . We also assume that the costs are additive.…”

Section: Behavioral Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact on Well-Being of Cognitive Bias about Infectious Diseases

Pestow

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hurley summarizes the key features of the N-C Welfarist approach to normative economics to include the following ( 32 ): Welfarism; consumer sovereignty; utility maximization (behavioral assumption); and consequentialism. Welfarism relies on the notion that social welfare is only a function of individual utilities which are derived from only goods and services ( 32 , 33 ). Utility is defined by revealed preferences which are assumed not to be distorted by ignorance, imperfect foresight, or misinformation because the individuals are “rational” and “responsible” in their choice making ( 17 , 34 ).…”

Section: Normative Framework From Economics For Psmentioning

confidence: 99%

Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): A Conceptual Review of Normative Economics Frameworks

Otim

Almarzouqi

Mukasa³

et al. 2020

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The health status of the Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries is well below that of the rest of the world. Coupled with low per capita income, these countries have agreed and committed themselves to raising their health status equitable standard by addressing United Nations (UN) Sustainability Development Goal number 3 (SDG3) by 2030. Addressing SDG3 requires increased and equitable funding for universal health coverage, healthcare infrastructure, efficient resource allocation, improved priority setting, reduction in corruption, and other strategies. However, what is urgently needed to improve priority setting processes or meaningful health system reform, among other things. There is therefore a need for the exploration of the economic and non-economic (which includes social justice) explicit criteria that ought to form the normative framework for Decision Making. These explicit criteria include efficiency, burden of disease, equality (strict egalitarianism), equity, and explicit criteria. Methods: The ultimate aim was to identify explicit values/principles/criteria that can be used to formulate an ideal normative framework to be used to guide decision Making so as to improve SDG3 in SSA. We synthesized selected literature on the normative frameworks for priority setting processes in health in SSA was undertaken, and the explicit criteria which, ought to guide these frameworks were identified. The form of the Social Welfare function and its principles was identified. Results and Conclusions: The framework and its explicit criteria for priority setting in the SSA countries that ought to be adopted in order to improve their SDG3 was identified—Non-Welfarist framework. This framework allows utility, health and other important social values/attributes/principles to enter the normative SWF. It is argued that such a framework ought to be specified empirically and concurrently by the decision-makers and members of the community representatives. Community representatives ought to be recognized as legitimate claimants of the resources determined, and should therefore be allowed to have a role in specifying the arguments in the SWF and what weights to be attached to the stated arguments. This implies that the selection of options in decision-making should focus on maximizing benefit and minimizing the opportunities forgone as stated in the framework.

show abstract

“…(See Mueller, 1989, chapter 19 andNg, 2000, chapter 2 that discuss the results of Sen, 1970 on the necessity of interpersonal comparisons and Kemp and Ng, 1976;Parks, 1976;Roberts, 1980 and others on the necessity of cardinal utility). 5 Most welfare economic analysts accept what Bergson (1938) calls ''the 5 In fact, we need what may be called fully cardinal utility/welfare levels, i.e., ratioscale measurability (where only the unit of measurement used is arbitrary) rather than just functions unique up to increasing affine (linear) transformations that do not have a well-defined zero point.…”

Section: The Impartiality Of Probability-weighted Welfare Maximizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intergenerational Impartiality: Replacing Discounting by Probability Weighting

2005

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergenerational impartiality requires putting the welfare of future generations at par with that of our own. However, rational choice requires weighting all welfare values by the respective probabilities of realization. As the risk of nonsurvival of mankind is strictly positive for all time periods and as the probability of non-survival is cumulative, the probability weights operate like discount factors, though justified on a morally justifiable and completely different ground. Impartial intertemporal welfare maximization is acceptable, though the welfare of people in the very far future has lower effects as the probabilities of their existence are also lower. However, the effective discount rate on future welfare values (distinct from monetary values) justified on this ground is likely to be less than 0.1% per annum. Such discounting does not compromise environmental protection and sustainability unduly. The finiteness of our universe implies that the sum of our expected welfare to infinity remains finite, solving the paradox of having to compare different infinite values in optimal growth/conservation theories.

show abstract

A Case for Higher Public Spending

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

The Impact on Well-Being of Cognitive Bias about Infectious Diseases

The Impact on Well-Being of Cognitive Bias about Infectious Diseases

Achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): A Conceptual Review of Normative Economics Frameworks

Intergenerational Impartiality: Replacing Discounting by Probability Weighting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About