leblon | (no subject)

Опять я все узнаю последним. Оказывается, Ларри Саммерс, бывший президент Гарварда, знаменит не только речью о причинах малого количества женщин в науке, но и следующим замечательным меморандумом:

DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP

'Dirty'Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank beencouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [LessDeveloped Countries]? I can think of three reasons: 1)The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends onthe foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From thispoint of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should bedone in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the countrywith the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a loadof toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we shouldface up to that.

2) The costs of pollution are likely tobe non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have verylow cost. I've always though that under-populated countries in Africaare vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastlyinefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only thelamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradableindustries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unittransport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfareenhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

3) The demandfor a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely tohave very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causesa one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviouslygoing to be much higher in a country where people survive to getprostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmospheredischarge is about visibility impairing particulates. These dischargesmay have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods thatembody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. Whileproduction is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.

Theproblem with the arguments against all of these proposals for morepollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons,social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned aroundand used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal forliberalization.

Update: Там не так все просто, Саммерс говорит, что это был "an ironic aside".