Documents Ackerman, Frank 11 results

"This paper presents a critical review of the mainstream economic models used to project the effects of global trade policies, namely “computable general equilibrium” (CGE) trade models. The results of these models are typically reported as if they were hard, objective facts, providing unambiguous numerical measures of the value of liberalization. Discussion of these results often suggests that the sheer size of the estimates itself makes a powerful case for liberalization, that all countries will benefit, and that gains from trade liberalization will translate into gains (or at least no losses) in jobs. However, looks can be deceiving; the dominant interpretation of the mainstream trade models is mistaken on at least three grounds, addressed in the three major sections of this paper. First, although the results of global trade modeling are often touted as evidence of large gains available from further trade liberalization, the most widely discussed CGE models now make surprisingly small estimates of the benefits of liberalization of merchandise trade. The estimates are especially small for developing countries, particularly under realistic assumptions about the likely extent of future trade liberalization. As a consequence, the estimated potential for free trade to reduce global poverty is also quite limited. "

"Atrazine, an herbicide used on most of the US corn (maize) crop, is the subject of ongoing controversy, with increasing documentation of its potentially harmful health and environmental impacts. Supporters of atrazine often claim that it is of great value to farmers; most recently, Syngenta, the producer of atrazine, sponsored an “Atrazine Benefits Team” (ABT) of researchers who released a set of five papers in 2011, reporting huge economic benefits from atrazine use in US agriculture. A critical review of the ABT papers shows that they have underestimated the growing problem of atrazine-resistant weeds, offered only a partial review of the effectiveness of alternative herbicides, and ignored the promising option of non-chemical weed management techniques. In addition, the most complete economic analysis in the ABT papers implies that withdrawal of atrazine would lead to a decrease in corn yields of 4·4% and an increase in corn prices of 8·0%. The result would be an increase in corn growers' revenues, equal to US$1·7 billion annually under ABT assumptions. Price impacts on consumers would be minimal: at current levels of ethanol production and use, gasoline prices would rise by no more than US$0·03 per gallon; beef prices would rise by an estimated US$0·01 for a 4-ounce hamburger and US$0·05 for an 8-ounce steak. Thus withdrawal of atrazine would boost farm revenues, while only changing consumer prices by pennies."

"The European Union is moving toward adoption of its new Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) policy, an innovative system of chemicals regulation that will provide crucial information on the safety profile of chemicals used in industry. Chemicals produced elsewhere, such as in the United States, and exported to Europe will have to meet the same standards as chemicals produced within the European Union. What is at stake for the U.S. is substantial: we estimate that chemical exports to Europe that are subject to REACH amount to about $14 billion per year, and are directly and indirectly responsible for 54,000 jobs. Revenues and employment of this magnitude dwarf the costs of compliance with REACH, which will amount to no more than $14 million per year. Even if, as the U.S. chemicals industry has argued, REACH is a needless mistake, it will be far more profitable to pay the modest compliance costs than to lose access to the enormous European market."

"In this article, we examine an argument that proponents of cost-benefit analysis have offered as a linchpin of the case for cost-benefit: that this technique is neither anti- nor pro-regulatory, but is a neutral tool for evaluating public policy. In making this argument, these observers have often invoked the use of cost-benefit analysis to support previous regulatory decisions as a sign that this technique can be used to support as well as to undermine protective regulation. As we demonstrate, however, the fact is that cost-benefit analysis would have stood as an obstacle to early regulatory successes. We have compiled three case studies in coming to this conclusion: the removal of lead from gasoline in the 1970s and 1980s, the decision not to dam the Grand Canyon for hydroelectric power in the 1960s, and the strict regulation of workplace exposure to vinyl chloride in 1974. The technique would have gotten the answer wrong in all three cases. Each case study illustrates, in a different manner, the damage that cost-benefit analysis could have done in the past, had it played the central role that is proposed for it today. The problems with cost-benefit analysis of regulations lie deep within the methodology; it would have done no better a generation ago than it does now. "

"The French economy is one of the five largest in the world, with a gross domestic product (GDP) of €26,500 per person. French workers are remarkably productive, with output per hour of labor higher than in the US, Japan, and almost all EU nations. Thus it is not surprising that French citizens enjoy a high standard of living and extensive social Over the long run, French economic performance has been similar to that of other leading industrial economies: rapid growth in the decades following World War II, giving way to restructuring and then slower growth from the 1980s onward. Restructuring quickly led to success in foreign trade; French exports have exceeded The costs of environmental protection are quite often overestimated in advance, and do not threaten the French economy. Recent European experience in international trade shows that environmental protection does not harm industry or undermine competitiveness. In recent years, the worlds leading exporter has been Germany. If European wages and regulations made a country uncompetitive, as pessimistic observers sometimes suggest, then neither Germany nor France would be thriving in world markets. Yet in fact, both countries are very successful exporters. The chemical industry had worldwide sales of €1.8 trillion ($2.2 trillion), more than 5% of world GDP, in 2004. Despite growing production in some developing countries, the majority of global chemicals production occurs in the EU, US, and Japan; these countries, especially the EU, routinely have trade surpluses in chemicals with the rest of the world. France produced 5.3% of the worlds chemicals in both 1980 and 2004, confirming that the country is holding its own in a changing, competitive global market. Pharmaceuticals are now the fastest] growing branch of the chemical industry in France and in many other countries. In 2004, pharmaceuticals accounted for 41% of the turnover of the French chemical industry; other specialty chemicals such as perfumes and cosmetics, paints, soaps and cleaning products, and agricultural chemicals accounted for 31%; and basic chemicals and plastics made up the remaining 28%. ..."
(From the Executive Summary)

"A la demande de Greenpeace France, Frank Ackerman, économiste états-unien, auteur de Priceless et de Les vrais coûts de REACH s'est penchée au chevet de la chimie française. Ses conclusions montrent que notre industrie est une "malade imaginaire", qui boude les facteurs socio-économiques de son renouvellement et se laisse bercer par des paradigmes dangereusement obsolètes. A l'occasion de la publication de son rapport Industrie Française et Chimie Durable : Les bénéfices du Développement Propre, il exposera les faits principaux de son diagnostic et prescrira quelques remèdes sans effets secondaires.
Confrontée à de nouvelles exigences réglementaires et souffrant d'une image dégradée, l'industrie chimique française ne parvient pas à dépasser ses crispations. Réconcilier la chimie avec le public, la moderniser, y développer l'emploi, et la qualité des emplois ainsi que les garanties sociales, réduire ses impacts sanitaires et écologiques... Tous ces objectifs ne relèvent ni de la communication incantatoire, ni d'une vision réductrice de l'économie. La réforme européenne REACH est une opportunité incontournable à laquelle l'industrie ne doit pas tourner le dos."
(Site de Greenpeace)

"The proportion of slaughtered cattle tested for BSE is much smaller in the U.S. than in Europe and Japan, leaving the U.S. heavily dependent on statistical models to estimate both the current prevalence and the spread of BSE. We examine the models relied on by USDA, finding that the prevalence model provides only a rough estimate, due to limited data availability. Reassuring forecasts from the model of the spread of BSE depend on the arbitrary constraint that worst-case values are assumed by only one of 17 key parameters at a time. In three of the six published scenarios with multiple worst-case parameter values, there is at least a 25% probability that BSE will spread rapidly. In public policy terms, reliance on potentially flawed models can be seen as a gamble that no serious BSE outbreak will occur. Statistical modeling at this level of abstraction, with its myriad, compound uncertainties, is no substitute for precautionary policies to protect public health against the threat of epidemics such as BSE."

"Stopping global warming and protecting the earth's climate is a daunting challenge. To prevent a climate crisis we have to move quickly to transform the ways in which we create and use energy, develop petroleum-free transportation, and much more. These changes will not be free; there is already resistance to paying for the first steps along this road. Some think that reaching for more ambitious mitigation targets, and quicker reductions in emissions, would mean economic disaster. Some economists have become known for advocating only slow and modest responses to climate change, lest the costs of mitigation become too large.
This report demonstrates that the 'go slow' recommendations are unjustified. A number of economic analyses, informed by recent scientific findings and using reasonable assumptions, suggest that more ambitious targets and quicker action make good economic sense. The warnings about climate change are growing steadily more ominous - but it has not, as a consequence, become impossibly expensive to save the planet. We can still afford a sustainable future."

"The disparity in wealth both within and between nations has grown rapidly in recent years, and is becoming an increasingly significant issue in attempts to deal with environmental problems - from international negotiations over climate change to local concerns about environmental justice.
The Political Economy of Inequality offers an in-depth examination of the economic theory behind the causes, consequences, and cures for inequality. The volume brings together disparate analyses of inequality in economic and related fields, identifies areas where more work is most needed, and lays the groundwork for an integrated understanding of the causes and consequences of inequality in the United States and the world."

"REACH, the European Union's proposed chemicals policy, is the subject of ongoing controversy -- focusing in particular on its potential costs. This study provides a bottom- up recalculation of the expected costs of the current (October 2003) version of REACH, estimating an 11-year total direct cost of €3.5 billion. A proposed variant, “REACH Plus,” would restore some features of a previous version of REACH, while increasing the total direct cost only to €4.0 billion. The annual cost is around 0.06% of the chemical industry's sales revenue. Two standard economic models imply that total (direct plus indirect) costs should be no more than 1.5 – 2.3 times the direct costs. Economic analysis confirms that costs of this magnitude are unlikely to harm European industry, while several studies have suggested that the health and environmental benefits of REACH will be substantial."
(Authors' abstract)