|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BOOK REVIEW How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place edited by Bjørn Lomborg Cambridge University Press - June 2006
Reviewed by Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty This book may have a catchy title but it deals with many serious problems. It is an abridged edition of Global Crises, Global Solutions, a work which brought together recommendations of the Copenhagen Consensus. The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus was an international meeting held in Copenhagen, Denmark, and included a debate among 38 of the world's top economists and an expert panel of eight top economists, each of whom prepared a paper on various global problems which were then presented to the whole group for discussion and criticism. The main question put to the conference was certainly a timely one: "If we had an extra $50 billion to put to good use, which problems would we solve first?" Hence the title of the book. The expert panel inquired into nine global challenges in an order of importance and presented proposals for addressing these challenges. They were guided "predominately by consideration of 'economic costs' and 'benefits'" -- something one would expect from economists considering these issues. The challenges include climate change, the spread of communicable diseases, conflicts and civil wars, access to education, poor governance and corruption, malnutrition and hunger, population migration, sanitation and access to clean water, and subsidies and trade barriers. A tenth challenge dealt with international financial instability, but the panel chose not to come to a view about any proposals to recommend. The challenge which ranked first of concern to the Copenhagen group was within the area of communicable disease, specifically controlling the spread of HIV/AIDS through new measures of prevention. The estimated cost of this investment was set at $27 billion, more than half of the $50 billion limit. In second place was providing micronutrients, which fell into the malnutrition and hunger category, at a suggested cost of $12 billion. Next was trade liberalization in the subsidies and trade barriers category (minimal cost), then control of malaria within the communicable disease category. These were chosen as the four best opportunities to change the world at this time. Population migration and climate change challenges were at the bottom of the list of proposals. In the book a chapter is devoted to each of the nine major categories and each includes an introduction by an expert or experts, followed by a summary of opposing views by other participants. As I was reading through the book, I found myself in a constant dialogue with the various writers and with the whole project in general, asking questions and challenging the ranking. I questioned why the HIV/AIDS proposal, for instance, ranked number one. I questioned why the issue of conflicts and civil wars was not ranked at all; it wasn't even included in the ranking table. I questioned why poor governance and corruption was ranked only ninth, below the proposals in the sanitation and access to clean water category. I would have ranked poor governance and corruption as number one or two and would have ranked conflicts and civil wars right before or after it. Why was I so far off from the ranking priorities of these economists? Then it dawned on me. These were economists! They were all economists! They looked at these challenges from the viewpoint of economists, primarily considering cost-benefit ratios and so forth. Then I recalled something from Lomborg's introduction to the book. He had written: "Why were all the experts economists? Many have questioned this. The goal for the Copenhagen Consensus was to set priorities using the expertise of economists to set economic priorities." And that explained it. I am not a trained economist. I was trained as a political scientist and I was looking at political priorities. From my perspective, little can be achieved regarding disease prevention, access to education, malnutrition and hunger, sanitation and access to clean water, and such, until a political situation is formatted and stabilized. My concern, therefore, would naturally be toward the categories of poor governance and corruption and conflict and civil wars and suggesting proposals to resolve those issues -- first. This, of course, has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong, or who possesses the "true" program for making the world a better place. It's a matter of one's perspective. The economists were quite correct in looking at solutions from a cost-benefit point of view. I needed to change my perspective. And the major contribution of this book to my thinking is that it forced me to do so. It didn't take me long to realize that with "only" $50 billion to spend, I would run out of money very fast if I spent it on trying to bring about good governance and eliminate political corruption throughout the world. My ranking would have been "impractical" and most likely doomed to failure. After all, the American government's war and reconstruction in Iraq is costing billions of dollars a month! (And not currently achieving all that much, either.) So I read back through the book again with a different attitude, adopting a different mindset. I then decided if any realistic, substantial change in the world is to come about, it would have to materialize along the line that these economists had suggested. If we only have $50 billion to spend, then we probably ought to spend it on those goals that can be realistically achieved and these economists were approaching things more realistically than I initially was. If we can prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS by spending $27 billion on the problem, then I say "Go for it!" If we can solve a part of the malnutrition and hunger problem by spending $12 billion, then I say "Let's do it!" This is an excellent book for anyone who wonders: "If I only had $50 billion to spend, how would I make the world a better place to live?" This is a thought-provoking book which will force readers to rethink their priorities and values, and may provide them with a new perspective toward the very real challenges we all face today in the international arena. 
Order at Amazon.com How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, edited by Bjørn Lomborg Order at Powell's Books How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, edited by Bjørn Lomborg |
|
|
|
|
|
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05, & 2006 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.