改善开发所致移民安置项目的后果——牛津大学难民研究中心研究成果报告

论文在讨论四个移民典型案例的基础上 ,讨论在项目中与政策相关的教训     

What to Do at Low Doses: A Bounding Approach for Economic Analysis

To quantify the health benefits of environmental policies, economists generally require estimates of the reduced probability of illness or death. For policies that reduce exposure to carcinogenic substances, these estimates traditionally have been obtained through the linear extrapolation of experimental dose-response data to low-exposure scenarios as described in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (1986). In response to evolving scientific knowledge, EPA proposed revisions to the guidelines in 1996. Under the proposed revisions, dose-response relationships would not be estimated for carcinogens thought to exhibit nonlinear modes of action. Such a change in cancer-risk assessment methods and outputs will likely have serious consequences for how benefit-cost analyses of policies aimed at reducing cancer risks are conducted. Any tendency for reduced quantification of effects in environmental risk assessments, such as those contemplated in the revisions to EPA's cancer-risk assessment guidelines, impedes the ability of economic analysts to respond to increasing calls for benefit-cost analysis. This article examines the implications for benefit-cost analysis of carcinogenic exposures of the proposed changes to the 1986 Guidelines and proposes an approach for bounding dose-response relationships when no biologically based models are available. In spite of the more limited quantitative information provided in a carcinogen risk assessment under the proposed revisions to the guidelines, we argue that reasonable bounds on dose-response relationships can be estimated for low-level exposures to nonlinear carcinogens. This approach yields estimates of reduced illness for use in a benefit-cost analysis while incorporating evidence of nonlinearities in the dose-response relationship. As an illustration, the bounding approach is applied to the case of chloroform exposure.     

An Exploratory Study of the Managerial Implications of Valuing Brands

This paper reports the results of interdisciplinary research extending the work of Mather and Peasnell (1991) reported in an earlier issue of this journal. Mather and Peasnell conducted an empirical analysis of the economic circumstances surrounding decisions to capitalize brands. This study investigates the managerial implications of periodically assessing and capitalizing the value of brands. Exploratory interviews were conducted with the key players in brand valuation activity, namely marketing and finance officials in brand-valuing companies and two senior personnel in the leading international brand-valuing agency. The recent inception of brand valuation in the accounts of several strong branded British companies provides an excellent research opportunity to explore a relatively novel managerial activity and its internal implications. These implications are reviewed under the headings: planning and control, the accounting/marketing interface, authorization of brand-related expenditure and brand-related decision making. An important finding of the study is that, while the original impetus for brand valuation came from balance sheet considerations, other unforseen managerial advantages are now widely perceived to accrue from brand valuation. The majority of current brand valuation activity appears to be driven more by management information needs, which are served by the evaluation phase of the exercise, than by a desire to capitalize brands in the published statements.     

Valuation of childhood risk reduction: the importance of age, risk preferences, and perspective.

This article explores two problems analysts face in determining how to estimate values for children's health and safety risk reductions. The first addresses the question: Do willingness‐to‐pay estimates for health risk changes differ across children and adults and, if so, how? To answer this question, the article first examines the potential effects of age and risk preferences on willingness to pay. A summary of the literature reporting empirical evidence of differences between willingness to pay for adult health and safety risk reductions and willingness to pay for health and safety risk reductions in children is also provided. The second dimension of the problem is a more fundamental issue: Whose perspective is relevant when valuing children's health effects—society's, children's, adults‐as‐children, or parents'? Each perspective is considered, followed ultimately by the conclusion that adopting a parental perspective through an intrahousehold allocation model seems closest to meeting the needs of the estimation problem at hand. A policy example in which the choice of perspective affects the outcome of a regulatory benefit‐cost analysis rounds out the article and emphasizes the importance of perspective.