Preliminary Benefit-Cost Assessment for 11th Session OWG Goals
Copenhagen Consensus Center
2 May 2014 45 pages
Full pdf: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/final_un_ccc_2015.pdf
Excerpt from Overview
In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritize? The Copenhagen Consensus Center provides information on which targets will do the most social good (measured in dollars, but also incorporating e.g. welfare, health and environmental protection), relative to their costs. Some of the world’s top economists have assessed the targets from the 11th session Open Working Group document into one of five categories, based on economic evidence:
:: PHENOMENAL – Robust evidence for benefits more than 15 times higher than costs
:: GOOD – Robust evidence of benefits between 5 to 15 times higher than costs
:: FAIR – Robust evidence of benefits between 1 to 5 times higher than costs
:: POOR – The benefits are smaller than costs or target poorly specified (e.g. internally inconsistent, incentivizes wrong activity)
:: UNCERTAIN – There is not enough knowledge of the policy options that could reach the target OR the costs and benefits of the actions to reach the target are not well known
This document was put together over two weeks after the draft of the targets for consideration of the 11th session of the OWG were released on Friday 18 April 2014. Given the short turnaround, the assessments should be considered preliminary, and much nuance explaining the rationales has been omitted. Nevertheless, we hope that the assessments are informative and will help focus the Open Working Group on the targets that will yield the most social benefit relative to cost. The decision on choosing goals will rest on a number of factors, not just economics – but knowing the costs and benefits provides an important piece of information. The Copenhagen Consensus will present full, peer-reviewed economic evidence over the coming half year.