Russian Destroyer Frees Hijacked Oil Tanker (May 6, 2010)
"Cmdr. John Harbour, a spokesman for the European force, said Thursday that the Russian warship had freed the tanker, the Moscow University, after its crew members locked themselves into the rudder compartment of the ship."
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
South Africa's president on monogamy, polygamy, infidelity, and AIDS
Zuma’s Frank Talk Starts AIDS Dialogue in South Africa
"During a 45-minute interview on Thursday, Mr. Zuma, who has three wives and a fiancée, talked about his personal relationships with startling directness and laid out his belief that a polygamous marriage in which H.I.V. is openly discussed is safer than a monogamous union in which a man has hidden mistresses. "
"During a 45-minute interview on Thursday, Mr. Zuma, who has three wives and a fiancée, talked about his personal relationships with startling directness and laid out his belief that a polygamous marriage in which H.I.V. is openly discussed is safer than a monogamous union in which a man has hidden mistresses. "
Ernst Fehr in New Scientist
Ernst Fehr: How I found what's wrong with economics
Least expected line: "However, as a former Austrian national wrestling champion, Fehr doesn't give up easily."
Least expected line: "However, as a former Austrian national wrestling champion, Fehr doesn't give up easily."
Friday, May 14, 2010
Job prospects for new law graduates
The WSJ reports: Bar Raised for Law-Grad Jobs: Employment Prospects Dim as Firms Retrench, Derailing Career Paths for Many
"Many 2009 law graduates who were offered jobs just started work this year. And many graduates hired in 2010 won't start until 2011. So even when the economy picks up, firms would first have to absorb their backlog of recent hires."
...
"Law firms had an average of 16 summer internship positions to offer this year, about half the number of the previous year, according to a March report by the National Association for Law Placement Inc.
Employers last year offered 69% of summer interns a full-time job, down from about 90% in the previous five years."
"Many 2009 law graduates who were offered jobs just started work this year. And many graduates hired in 2010 won't start until 2011. So even when the economy picks up, firms would first have to absorb their backlog of recent hires."
...
"Law firms had an average of 16 summer internship positions to offer this year, about half the number of the previous year, according to a March report by the National Association for Law Placement Inc.
Employers last year offered 69% of summer interns a full-time job, down from about 90% in the previous five years."
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Market design seminar tomorrow (Friday May 13 2010)
If you're not on Peter Coles' distribution list, here's the announcement.
Hello Market Design Community:
The speakers in Friday’s HBS Market Design Workshop (the last of the semester!) are
** IAN KASH, "An Auction Design for Sharing Wireless Spectrum," Harvard Center for Research on Computation and Society
** SCOTT KOMINERS, "Concordance Among Holdouts" [with E. G. Weyl], Harvard Business Economics
We’ll meet tomorrow, Friday May 14, from 3-5PM in HBS Baker Library Room 102. The workshop features an informal format for presenting early-stage work, and is intended to encourage the Boston area market design community to meet and interact. Sushi will be provided.
Thanks, and we look forward to seeing you.
Peter Coles / Ben Edelman / Al Roth
Hello Market Design Community:
The speakers in Friday’s HBS Market Design Workshop (the last of the semester!) are
** IAN KASH, "An Auction Design for Sharing Wireless Spectrum," Harvard Center for Research on Computation and Society
** SCOTT KOMINERS, "Concordance Among Holdouts" [with E. G. Weyl], Harvard Business Economics
We’ll meet tomorrow, Friday May 14, from 3-5PM in HBS Baker Library Room 102. The workshop features an informal format for presenting early-stage work, and is intended to encourage the Boston area market design community to meet and interact. Sushi will be provided.
Thanks, and we look forward to seeing you.
Peter Coles / Ben Edelman / Al Roth
College admissions after May 1
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports Good Seats Are Still Available at many colleges.
"On Wednesday, the National Association for College Admission Counseling released its annual "Space Availability Survey," listing the colleges and universities that still have openings for this fall's first-year class. As we move past May 1, the traditional deadline for students to submit enrollment deposits, the survey is a good reminder that the admissions calendar isn't the same at every college."
InsideHigherEd.com has a similar story from the perspective of the colleges: The Early Word on Yield. That story offers some interesting perspectives on the business of finding and recruiting students, e.g.:
"Across the state, Mike Frantz, vice president of enrollment at Robert Morris University, is also looking at vastly different yields for different programs. ...Over all, the university is thrilled "beyond our wildest dreams" because those numbers for the year -- in which overall yield is 17.6 percent, down less than a point -- come from a much larger applicant pool and more admittances. Applications were up 40 percent. The key, Frantz said, was that the college bought names of prospective students at the beginning of their senior year in high school. In the past, Robert Morris stopped buying new names when students reached their junior year, a common practice, feeling that potential students would be identified by then. "But the vast majority of our new applicants, and many of our new students, came from these pools, whose names aren't being purchased traditionally," he said."
"On Wednesday, the National Association for College Admission Counseling released its annual "Space Availability Survey," listing the colleges and universities that still have openings for this fall's first-year class. As we move past May 1, the traditional deadline for students to submit enrollment deposits, the survey is a good reminder that the admissions calendar isn't the same at every college."
InsideHigherEd.com has a similar story from the perspective of the colleges: The Early Word on Yield. That story offers some interesting perspectives on the business of finding and recruiting students, e.g.:
"Across the state, Mike Frantz, vice president of enrollment at Robert Morris University, is also looking at vastly different yields for different programs. ...Over all, the university is thrilled "beyond our wildest dreams" because those numbers for the year -- in which overall yield is 17.6 percent, down less than a point -- come from a much larger applicant pool and more admittances. Applications were up 40 percent. The key, Frantz said, was that the college bought names of prospective students at the beginning of their senior year in high school. In the past, Robert Morris stopped buying new names when students reached their junior year, a common practice, feeling that potential students would be identified by then. "But the vast majority of our new applicants, and many of our new students, came from these pools, whose names aren't being purchased traditionally," he said."
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The market for divorce
Tyler Cowen at MR links to a NY Times story about a divorce themed trade fair in Italy: Divorce Trade Fair Shows Changing Italian Culture
It notes that until recently divorce was a repugnant transaction in Italy. "Italy ratified divorce only in 1974 in a referendum, and critics complain that Italian legislators have not kept up with changing times. "
A much more aggressive component of the market for divorce is reported by the Times of London in a story from Japan. Sex, lies and splitting up: Want to dump a troublesome husband, or unsuitable boyfriend? Just call Osamu Tomiya and his team of splitter-uppers...
The article focuses on "Osamu Tomiya — a member of a peculiarly Japanese profession, part-private investigator, part-prostitute, known as wakaresase-ya — the “splitter-uppers”.
The function of the wakaresase-ya is the direct opposite of a dating agency: with great ingenuity, and the right fee, they will prise apart human relationships. Do you have a troublesome ex-boyfriend who won’t leave you alone? A beloved son who is getting engaged to an unsuitable girl? A dead-loss employee who refuses to take the hint and retire? All of these difficult situations can be resolved by the splitter-uppers.
The broken-hearted ex will be visited by the girl’s “new boyfriend”, a muscular gangster-type who explains why he would be wise to nurse his broken heart alone. The undesirable daughter-in-law-to-be will be lured into a drunken one-night stand with a handsome and mysterious man who appears from nowhere — photographs of their tryst will find their way to her fiancé. The stubborn employee will find himself confronted with evidence of gambling debts, or nights in massage parlours — and resign to avoid embarrassment. In each case, the dirty work — of threatening, seducing and investigating — has been done by a splitter-upper.
But most common of all are complications surrounding marriages. In Japan, the idea of a “no-fault” divorce has never caught on and when a marriage breaks down, it is helpful to be morally in the right. When it comes to maintenance, division of common property and custody of children, the betrayed partner is at a great advantage over the betrayer. And this is where the splitter-uppers come in.
For a wife who wants shot of her husband, it would be disastrous just to own up to a long-term lover and throw herself on the mercy of the courts. Instead, she hires someone such as Mr Tomiya, a 40-year-old former sushi chef, to set up the honeytrap that will put her husband in the wrong and enable her to go before the judge as the injured party, with photographs to prove it."
It notes that until recently divorce was a repugnant transaction in Italy. "Italy ratified divorce only in 1974 in a referendum, and critics complain that Italian legislators have not kept up with changing times. "
A much more aggressive component of the market for divorce is reported by the Times of London in a story from Japan. Sex, lies and splitting up: Want to dump a troublesome husband, or unsuitable boyfriend? Just call Osamu Tomiya and his team of splitter-uppers...
The article focuses on "Osamu Tomiya — a member of a peculiarly Japanese profession, part-private investigator, part-prostitute, known as wakaresase-ya — the “splitter-uppers”.
The function of the wakaresase-ya is the direct opposite of a dating agency: with great ingenuity, and the right fee, they will prise apart human relationships. Do you have a troublesome ex-boyfriend who won’t leave you alone? A beloved son who is getting engaged to an unsuitable girl? A dead-loss employee who refuses to take the hint and retire? All of these difficult situations can be resolved by the splitter-uppers.
The broken-hearted ex will be visited by the girl’s “new boyfriend”, a muscular gangster-type who explains why he would be wise to nurse his broken heart alone. The undesirable daughter-in-law-to-be will be lured into a drunken one-night stand with a handsome and mysterious man who appears from nowhere — photographs of their tryst will find their way to her fiancé. The stubborn employee will find himself confronted with evidence of gambling debts, or nights in massage parlours — and resign to avoid embarrassment. In each case, the dirty work — of threatening, seducing and investigating — has been done by a splitter-upper.
But most common of all are complications surrounding marriages. In Japan, the idea of a “no-fault” divorce has never caught on and when a marriage breaks down, it is helpful to be morally in the right. When it comes to maintenance, division of common property and custody of children, the betrayed partner is at a great advantage over the betrayer. And this is where the splitter-uppers come in.
For a wife who wants shot of her husband, it would be disastrous just to own up to a long-term lover and throw herself on the mercy of the courts. Instead, she hires someone such as Mr Tomiya, a 40-year-old former sushi chef, to set up the honeytrap that will put her husband in the wrong and enable her to go before the judge as the injured party, with photographs to prove it."
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Misc. organ transplant commentary and news
The Times of London reports on how one deceased donor can donate many organs: How one organ donor can save the lives of nine people
There is a worrying shortage of organ donors — and gaining consent from grieving relatives is a delicate task
A living donor is unhappy with the way they have been treated: The Hypocrisy of OPTN's Committee Goals "UNOS has had the OPTN contract since 1986 (yet they cared so little for us they didn't even collect LD social security numbers til 1994); they've had policy to collect follow-up data on living donors since 2000 (but the transplant centers were 50-80% non-compliant), yet it wasn't until 2005 they decided it should be "clinically relevant and validated". And since 2005, independent researchers, UNOS officials and SRTR personnel have all criticized UNOS' data collection as 'woefully inadequate', and worthless as far as any meaningful analysis goes. "
A columnist quotes Adam Smith in support of making compensation for donors legal: Dying people shouldn’t be beggars "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ... Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."
—Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations"
A living donor is declined by a hospital: Kidney Donation Canceled Because Donor and Recipient ‘Bonded’ and THE MATCH (UN)MAKERS: Why did Einstein halt life-saving transplant? both report a hospital's decision not to accept a donation from a donor who had met his potential recipient via the matchingdonors.com website. The WSJ piece says, by way of of explanation: "As the WSJ has reported, hospitals may be reluctant to agree to this kind of altruistic donation, fearing that donors may have been paid or that participants won’t make it through the rigorous psychological evaluation process, or because the practice sidesteps the official organ waiting lists."
Alex Tabarrok at MR reports on Changing Views on Organ Prohibition and reports that the anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes, who has studied black markets for organs, is in favor of careful trials of ways to ethically compensate organ donors.
California, New York mull changes to organ donor laws
"A California bill may soon create a living donor registry -- the first for any state.
Spurred by Apple co-founder and transplant recipient Steve Jobs, the bill has gained support from major politicos, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and is expected to land on his desk this summer.
Meanwhile, on the East Coast, a far more sweeping transplant bill would make every person an organ donor who doesn't opt out. This would create an organ donation system in New York similar to the ones used in several European countries, but the measure is already facing opposition."
The California bill seems to be aimed primarily at promoting kidney exchange...
There is a worrying shortage of organ donors — and gaining consent from grieving relatives is a delicate task
A living donor is unhappy with the way they have been treated: The Hypocrisy of OPTN's Committee Goals "UNOS has had the OPTN contract since 1986 (yet they cared so little for us they didn't even collect LD social security numbers til 1994); they've had policy to collect follow-up data on living donors since 2000 (but the transplant centers were 50-80% non-compliant), yet it wasn't until 2005 they decided it should be "clinically relevant and validated". And since 2005, independent researchers, UNOS officials and SRTR personnel have all criticized UNOS' data collection as 'woefully inadequate', and worthless as far as any meaningful analysis goes. "
A columnist quotes Adam Smith in support of making compensation for donors legal: Dying people shouldn’t be beggars "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ... Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."
—Adam Smith, "Wealth of Nations"
A living donor is declined by a hospital: Kidney Donation Canceled Because Donor and Recipient ‘Bonded’ and THE MATCH (UN)MAKERS: Why did Einstein halt life-saving transplant? both report a hospital's decision not to accept a donation from a donor who had met his potential recipient via the matchingdonors.com website. The WSJ piece says, by way of of explanation: "As the WSJ has reported, hospitals may be reluctant to agree to this kind of altruistic donation, fearing that donors may have been paid or that participants won’t make it through the rigorous psychological evaluation process, or because the practice sidesteps the official organ waiting lists."
Alex Tabarrok at MR reports on Changing Views on Organ Prohibition and reports that the anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes, who has studied black markets for organs, is in favor of careful trials of ways to ethically compensate organ donors.
California, New York mull changes to organ donor laws
"A California bill may soon create a living donor registry -- the first for any state.
Spurred by Apple co-founder and transplant recipient Steve Jobs, the bill has gained support from major politicos, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and is expected to land on his desk this summer.
Meanwhile, on the East Coast, a far more sweeping transplant bill would make every person an organ donor who doesn't opt out. This would create an organ donation system in New York similar to the ones used in several European countries, but the measure is already facing opposition."
The California bill seems to be aimed primarily at promoting kidney exchange...
Monday, May 10, 2010
Surrogacy, payments, and parental rights in Britain
Couples who pay surrogate mothers could lose right to raise the child: High court could refuse recognition to people who flout law by paying disproportionate fees to a surrogate mother overseas.
"Childless couples who acquire a baby using a surrogate mother abroad risk not being recognised as its parents in Britain if they flout British law by paying fees, fertility lawyers have warned.
Such payments, which can be as high as £30,000, could lead to those who have made them being refused permission by the high court to become the child's legal parents, specialist solicitors say.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 allows couples entering into deals with a surrogate mother overseas to pay her only what is allowed here – "expenses reasonably incurred", such as compensation for time off work, medical bills and living expenses."
...
""The risk couples face if they pay a disproportionate amount in expenses is that the high court may refuse to authorise those expenses. That could result in the parental order application failing and in turn they would have no status as parents under English law," said John Randle, a leading surrogacy lawyer."
...
"International surrogacy is hugely controversial. "It's unethical and exploitative because the trade is all one-way," said Breedagh Hughes, a Royal College of Midwives spokeswoman, on the ethics of childbirth. "It reduces babies to the level of commodities." "
"Jonathan, a 32-year-old nurse, tells how he and his civil partner, Colin, 33, a financier, spent $150,000 (£98,000) on surrogacy to become the parents of Harriet, who was born in California last year. They live in London.
"We began discussing having a child in 2006, when we were deciding to become civil partners. I was feeling broody, and had always wanted to have my own biological child. We opted to pursue surrogacy in California because we would get legal custody there of the child before it was born and the surrogate would have no legal relationship to the baby.
"My sperm was introduced to eggs left by an egg donor: they were fertilised in an IVF clinic in Los Angeles and two of the embryos were implanted into the surrogate. She simply carried the child for nine months.
An agency in LA found both the egg donor and the surrogate. We never met the egg donor or knew who she was, but knew her medical history, results of her genetic tests, what she looked like and so on. We did meet and get on well with the surrogate, who was called Jennifer. She had two daughters of her own and had been a surrogate once before. There was no coercion. We had a contract, and Jennifer specified things in that like that she wanted back massages and a big hotel room for her family to stay in when she was giving birth.
Agencies in California quote a price of $100,000 to $150,000 to do everything relating to a child. The whole process wasn't too difficult, and cost us about $150,000. We paid the embryologist $60,000, though that included the harvesting of the donor's eggs, the IVF and the transfer of the embryos into the surrogate. It was $40,000 for the surrogate and $10,000 for the egg donor, plus $10,000 to the agency, who supplied the donor and the surrogate. Then there was $10,000 for our lawyer, $5,000 for the medical and psychological screening and another $5,000 for medication for both the donor and the surrogate, to ensure they were in cycle at the same time.
"Bringing Harriet into the UK nine months later was incredibly difficult, though, and we engaged lawyers to help us. She had to come in as an immigrant on a US passport on a six-month tourist visa. When we later filled in a form to get her British citizenship, we put 'not known' in the section headed 'mother'. She now has dual nationality and is legally ours under Californian law. If we do apply, it could be an issue that we paid well over the 'reasonable expenses' limit – that is, we paid a fee. That's illegal in this country, but allowed under Californian law.
"We shouldn't have to seek a parental order. She was conceived and born in California as our child, and her birth certificate says who her parents are, so the courts here should respect Californian law.
Having to apply for a parental order, where there'd be an assessment of Harriet's welfare and Colin would have to prove that he's no danger to her, is an inequity. Anybody else can go out, get drunk, get pregnant, bring up a child appallingly and face no intervention or legal barriers.
I resent people saying that British couples who resort to surrogacy are buying babies abroad. We didn't buy Harriet: she's not picked off a shelf. She's not a 'designer baby'.
We had our own child and had a great team to help us. All we did was rent a woman to carry her. We paid for the services of an embryologist and an incubator who walks and makes good babies – but we didn't buy a baby. She's my daughter biologically, and she's our baby.
A lot of heterosexual couples in the UK spend a lot of money having many cycles of IVF at £5,000 a time – is that not buying a baby?" "
HT: Nick Feltovich
"Childless couples who acquire a baby using a surrogate mother abroad risk not being recognised as its parents in Britain if they flout British law by paying fees, fertility lawyers have warned.
Such payments, which can be as high as £30,000, could lead to those who have made them being refused permission by the high court to become the child's legal parents, specialist solicitors say.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 allows couples entering into deals with a surrogate mother overseas to pay her only what is allowed here – "expenses reasonably incurred", such as compensation for time off work, medical bills and living expenses."
...
""The risk couples face if they pay a disproportionate amount in expenses is that the high court may refuse to authorise those expenses. That could result in the parental order application failing and in turn they would have no status as parents under English law," said John Randle, a leading surrogacy lawyer."
...
"International surrogacy is hugely controversial. "It's unethical and exploitative because the trade is all one-way," said Breedagh Hughes, a Royal College of Midwives spokeswoman, on the ethics of childbirth. "It reduces babies to the level of commodities." "
"Jonathan, a 32-year-old nurse, tells how he and his civil partner, Colin, 33, a financier, spent $150,000 (£98,000) on surrogacy to become the parents of Harriet, who was born in California last year. They live in London.
"We began discussing having a child in 2006, when we were deciding to become civil partners. I was feeling broody, and had always wanted to have my own biological child. We opted to pursue surrogacy in California because we would get legal custody there of the child before it was born and the surrogate would have no legal relationship to the baby.
"My sperm was introduced to eggs left by an egg donor: they were fertilised in an IVF clinic in Los Angeles and two of the embryos were implanted into the surrogate. She simply carried the child for nine months.
An agency in LA found both the egg donor and the surrogate. We never met the egg donor or knew who she was, but knew her medical history, results of her genetic tests, what she looked like and so on. We did meet and get on well with the surrogate, who was called Jennifer. She had two daughters of her own and had been a surrogate once before. There was no coercion. We had a contract, and Jennifer specified things in that like that she wanted back massages and a big hotel room for her family to stay in when she was giving birth.
Agencies in California quote a price of $100,000 to $150,000 to do everything relating to a child. The whole process wasn't too difficult, and cost us about $150,000. We paid the embryologist $60,000, though that included the harvesting of the donor's eggs, the IVF and the transfer of the embryos into the surrogate. It was $40,000 for the surrogate and $10,000 for the egg donor, plus $10,000 to the agency, who supplied the donor and the surrogate. Then there was $10,000 for our lawyer, $5,000 for the medical and psychological screening and another $5,000 for medication for both the donor and the surrogate, to ensure they were in cycle at the same time.
"Bringing Harriet into the UK nine months later was incredibly difficult, though, and we engaged lawyers to help us. She had to come in as an immigrant on a US passport on a six-month tourist visa. When we later filled in a form to get her British citizenship, we put 'not known' in the section headed 'mother'. She now has dual nationality and is legally ours under Californian law. If we do apply, it could be an issue that we paid well over the 'reasonable expenses' limit – that is, we paid a fee. That's illegal in this country, but allowed under Californian law.
"We shouldn't have to seek a parental order. She was conceived and born in California as our child, and her birth certificate says who her parents are, so the courts here should respect Californian law.
Having to apply for a parental order, where there'd be an assessment of Harriet's welfare and Colin would have to prove that he's no danger to her, is an inequity. Anybody else can go out, get drunk, get pregnant, bring up a child appallingly and face no intervention or legal barriers.
I resent people saying that British couples who resort to surrogacy are buying babies abroad. We didn't buy Harriet: she's not picked off a shelf. She's not a 'designer baby'.
We had our own child and had a great team to help us. All we did was rent a woman to carry her. We paid for the services of an embryologist and an incubator who walks and makes good babies – but we didn't buy a baby. She's my daughter biologically, and she's our baby.
A lot of heterosexual couples in the UK spend a lot of money having many cycles of IVF at £5,000 a time – is that not buying a baby?" "
HT: Nick Feltovich
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Organ donation and surrogacy: a Mothers' Day story
Donor gives more than just kidney to Northbrook family
"A little more than 6½ years ago, Fink, then 43, started dialysis after her kidneys failed. Soon after, the Northbrook resident learned the devastating news: her life expectancy made it unlikely she'd live beyond March of this year. But after she found a kidney donor through a Web site -- and after that donor's wife agreed to be a surrogate mother for Fink and her husband -- Gail is not only alive, she is thriving. So are her twin 2½ year-old sons."
Happy Mothers' Day out there.
"A little more than 6½ years ago, Fink, then 43, started dialysis after her kidneys failed. Soon after, the Northbrook resident learned the devastating news: her life expectancy made it unlikely she'd live beyond March of this year. But after she found a kidney donor through a Web site -- and after that donor's wife agreed to be a surrogate mother for Fink and her husband -- Gail is not only alive, she is thriving. So are her twin 2½ year-old sons."
Happy Mothers' Day out there.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
China’s Arranged Remarriages
The NY Times reports on China’s Arranged Remarriages among widows and widowers whose spouses died in the devastating earthquake that destroyed towns in Sichuan on May 12, 2008.
It is an unusual demographic event, which created a thick pool of potential (re)marriage partners.
"Coaxing earthquake survivors into remarriage has become a community obligation. Unlikely volunteers have joined in the matchmaking efforts, from former in-laws to the leaders of the local Communist “work units” to which every family in this part of rural Sichuan is still assigned. Behind them is the Chinese government. The state, which has long seen fit to intervene in the most private aspects of people’s lives, including reproductive rights, has avidly promoted — and in some cases even arranged — what it dryly calls “restructured families.”
By the end of 2008, less than eight months after the earthquake, 614 survivors from Beichuan alone had already remarried, according to Wang Hongfa, a local civil-affairs official. (The number across Sichuan’s earthquake zone, though not made public, is estimated to be well into the thousands.) That so many earthquake survivors have already remarried is not surprising in itself; but in many cases, these are widows marrying widowers, two survivors striving to get back onto solid ground. "
It is an unusual demographic event, which created a thick pool of potential (re)marriage partners.
"Coaxing earthquake survivors into remarriage has become a community obligation. Unlikely volunteers have joined in the matchmaking efforts, from former in-laws to the leaders of the local Communist “work units” to which every family in this part of rural Sichuan is still assigned. Behind them is the Chinese government. The state, which has long seen fit to intervene in the most private aspects of people’s lives, including reproductive rights, has avidly promoted — and in some cases even arranged — what it dryly calls “restructured families.”
By the end of 2008, less than eight months after the earthquake, 614 survivors from Beichuan alone had already remarried, according to Wang Hongfa, a local civil-affairs official. (The number across Sichuan’s earthquake zone, though not made public, is estimated to be well into the thousands.) That so many earthquake survivors have already remarried is not surprising in itself; but in many cases, these are widows marrying widowers, two survivors striving to get back onto solid ground. "
Gifted programs for pre-kindergarten in NYC
I like the first paragraph of this story: More Pre-K Pupils Qualify for Gifted Programs
"The number of students qualifying for gifted kindergarten programs in New York City public school districts rose by 10 percent this year, and those qualifying for the elite citywide program jumped by a third, raising the possibility that parents and their children have begun to master an admission process that was retooled three years ago."
"The number of students qualifying for gifted kindergarten programs in New York City public school districts rose by 10 percent this year, and those qualifying for the elite citywide program jumped by a third, raising the possibility that parents and their children have begun to master an admission process that was retooled three years ago."
Friday, May 7, 2010
School choice in NYC, a problem facing large school systems
The most demanded schools are very hard to get into, even for very well qualified students, some of whom can have trouble matching: For Many, High School Match Game Continues.
"Although most of the city's 86,000 eighth graders were matched with a high school this year, every year thousands of students don't get in anywhere and it doesn't matter whether they have good grades, test scores and attendance records. They have to apply all over again, with a much more limited list of schools to choose from."
The full process in NYC, in which in the initial round students can list no more than 12 programs to apply to, is described in this paper: Abdulkadiroglu, Atila, Parag A. Pathak, and Alvin E. Roth, "Strategy-proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match,'' American Economic Review, 99, 5, Dec. 2009, pp1954-1978.
And the following paper uses the fact that the proportion of unmatched students doesn't go to zero as the school system gets large, so in a very large school system like NYC, the number of initially unmatched students won't be tiny. (That doesn't mean that allowing longer lists wouldn't help.)
Kojima, Fuhito, Parag A. Pathak, and Alvin E. Roth, " Matching with Couples: Stability and Incentives in Large Markets," working paper, April 28, 2010.
"Although most of the city's 86,000 eighth graders were matched with a high school this year, every year thousands of students don't get in anywhere and it doesn't matter whether they have good grades, test scores and attendance records. They have to apply all over again, with a much more limited list of schools to choose from."
The full process in NYC, in which in the initial round students can list no more than 12 programs to apply to, is described in this paper: Abdulkadiroglu, Atila, Parag A. Pathak, and Alvin E. Roth, "Strategy-proofness versus Efficiency in Matching with Indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match,'' American Economic Review, 99, 5, Dec. 2009, pp1954-1978.
And the following paper uses the fact that the proportion of unmatched students doesn't go to zero as the school system gets large, so in a very large school system like NYC, the number of initially unmatched students won't be tiny. (That doesn't mean that allowing longer lists wouldn't help.)
Kojima, Fuhito, Parag A. Pathak, and Alvin E. Roth, " Matching with Couples: Stability and Incentives in Large Markets," working paper, April 28, 2010.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Same sex spouses versus Defense of Marriage Act
The clash between repugnant and protected transactions will have its day in court, starting today: Gay Couples Challenge Defense Of Marriage Act
"Six years after Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, a group of married same-sex couples will be in federal court in Boston on Thursday, arguing that their marriages should also be recognized by the federal government. "...
"Bush, Ritchie and 17 other plaintiffs argue that the federal government can't just ignore some marriage certificates and recognize others. Their lawyer, Gary Buseck with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, says DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it is discriminatory.
When Congress passed the law in 1996, Buseck says, members "simply had a knee-jerk reaction that we have to bar the doors of the federal government in every conceivable way from the invasion of married gay people. I mean, they let it all hang loose."
Indeed, in heated congressional debate over DOMA in 1996, supporters argued the stakes couldn't be higher. One of DOMA's authors, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, proclaimed, "The flames of hedonism and the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society."
Barr, now a libertarian, has since called for DOMA's repeal, saying it violates states rights. President Obama also supports repeal. But his administration is in the awkward position of having to defend the law in court. As a Department of Justice official put it, we "can't pick and choose which federal laws [to] defend based on any one administration's policy preferences."
So, while government lawyers go out of their way in their legal papers to call DOMA “discriminatory,” they’re also arguing Congress did have good reason to want to preserve the status quo."
Here's my earlier post: When a protected transaction meets a repugnant one: The MA suit over the Defense of Marriage Act
"Six years after Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, a group of married same-sex couples will be in federal court in Boston on Thursday, arguing that their marriages should also be recognized by the federal government. "...
"Bush, Ritchie and 17 other plaintiffs argue that the federal government can't just ignore some marriage certificates and recognize others. Their lawyer, Gary Buseck with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, says DOMA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it is discriminatory.
When Congress passed the law in 1996, Buseck says, members "simply had a knee-jerk reaction that we have to bar the doors of the federal government in every conceivable way from the invasion of married gay people. I mean, they let it all hang loose."
Indeed, in heated congressional debate over DOMA in 1996, supporters argued the stakes couldn't be higher. One of DOMA's authors, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, proclaimed, "The flames of hedonism and the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society."
Barr, now a libertarian, has since called for DOMA's repeal, saying it violates states rights. President Obama also supports repeal. But his administration is in the awkward position of having to defend the law in court. As a Department of Justice official put it, we "can't pick and choose which federal laws [to] defend based on any one administration's policy preferences."
So, while government lawyers go out of their way in their legal papers to call DOMA “discriminatory,” they’re also arguing Congress did have good reason to want to preserve the status quo."
Here's my earlier post: When a protected transaction meets a repugnant one: The MA suit over the Defense of Marriage Act
Compensation for bone marrow donors: opposing views
In November I wrote about a lawsuit to overturn the ban on compensation for bone marrow donors: Compensating donors: how about bone marrow? . Commentary in support of the lawsuit suggested that perhaps bone marrow had been unintentionally included in the more general ban on compensation for organ donors.
More recently, some of the organizations connected with bone marrow have come out against compensation: Leading Transplant and Transfusion Organizations Join Forces in Effort to Keep Bone Marrow Donation Voluntary .
"Voicing concern about the potential impact on patient and donor safety, nine leading international health organizations have formed a coalition to oppose compensating people who provide bone marrow for transplantation.
"The organizations — each a leader in the field of transplantation and transfusion therapies — have joined forces in the face of a lawsuit aimed at overturning current U.S. law regarding bone marrow donation. The Institute for Justice is seeking to reverse the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, as it applies to the prohibition on compensating bone marrow donors. ...
"The coalition includes the NMDP, America’s Blood Centers, AABB (formerly American Association of Blood Banks), the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, the American Society of Transplantation, International Society of Cellular Therapy, The Transplantation Society, and the World Marrow Donor Association.
They oppose changing the current law, citing these reasons:
Protecting Recipient and Donor Safety
A complete and truthful health history is critical to ensure that individuals are eligible to donate and that donated cells are free from infectious diseases. There is a substantial body of experience that people wanting to sell their body parts are more likely to withhold medical details and information that could harm patients.
Maintaining Altruistic Motivations
Studies have shown that compensating donors would deter those who are willing to donate for purely altruistic reasons. The eight million members of the Be The Match Registry® — in addition to the five million volunteer donors on international registries — are proof that people do not need material incentive to save a life. Current law already allows donors to be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages. The NMDP and other organizations maintain funds expressly for this purpose.
Avoiding the Creation of Markets in Marrow Donation
Compensation has the potential to create markets for marrow, which could have detrimental effects for both donors and patients. Sellers influenced by possible financial gain could ignore the health risks associated with donation or be coerced by third-party organizations that would profit from a marrow sale. In addition, markets put physicians in the morally dubious position of carrying out medical procedures solely so that sellers may profit.
”The creation of markets is likely to elicit criticism from groups that oppose treating the human body and its parts as property,” said Art Caplan, professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “To risk potentially undermining support for marrow donation by allowing donor compensation is irresponsible and short-sighted.”
Ensuring Patients’ Access to Treatment
While the Institute for Justice’s lawsuit alleges compensation might increase patients’ access to bone marrow, the opposite is true.
Changing the U.S. law to allow compensation for marrow donors would set a precedent that could hurt the current voluntary systems for organ and blood donation, potentially undermining some patients’ access to safe organ transplants and blood transfusions. If donors were compensated, the United States would no longer conform to international standards for the use of volunteer donors in cell therapies. Thus, patients in the United States may be unable to have access to the worldwide search process. This would restrict Americans’ chances of finding a match and lives may be lost. "
More recently, some of the organizations connected with bone marrow have come out against compensation: Leading Transplant and Transfusion Organizations Join Forces in Effort to Keep Bone Marrow Donation Voluntary .
"Voicing concern about the potential impact on patient and donor safety, nine leading international health organizations have formed a coalition to oppose compensating people who provide bone marrow for transplantation.
"The organizations — each a leader in the field of transplantation and transfusion therapies — have joined forces in the face of a lawsuit aimed at overturning current U.S. law regarding bone marrow donation. The Institute for Justice is seeking to reverse the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, as it applies to the prohibition on compensating bone marrow donors. ...
"The coalition includes the NMDP, America’s Blood Centers, AABB (formerly American Association of Blood Banks), the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, the American Society of Transplantation, International Society of Cellular Therapy, The Transplantation Society, and the World Marrow Donor Association.
They oppose changing the current law, citing these reasons:
Protecting Recipient and Donor Safety
A complete and truthful health history is critical to ensure that individuals are eligible to donate and that donated cells are free from infectious diseases. There is a substantial body of experience that people wanting to sell their body parts are more likely to withhold medical details and information that could harm patients.
Maintaining Altruistic Motivations
Studies have shown that compensating donors would deter those who are willing to donate for purely altruistic reasons. The eight million members of the Be The Match Registry® — in addition to the five million volunteer donors on international registries — are proof that people do not need material incentive to save a life. Current law already allows donors to be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages. The NMDP and other organizations maintain funds expressly for this purpose.
Avoiding the Creation of Markets in Marrow Donation
Compensation has the potential to create markets for marrow, which could have detrimental effects for both donors and patients. Sellers influenced by possible financial gain could ignore the health risks associated with donation or be coerced by third-party organizations that would profit from a marrow sale. In addition, markets put physicians in the morally dubious position of carrying out medical procedures solely so that sellers may profit.
”The creation of markets is likely to elicit criticism from groups that oppose treating the human body and its parts as property,” said Art Caplan, professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. “To risk potentially undermining support for marrow donation by allowing donor compensation is irresponsible and short-sighted.”
Ensuring Patients’ Access to Treatment
While the Institute for Justice’s lawsuit alleges compensation might increase patients’ access to bone marrow, the opposite is true.
Changing the U.S. law to allow compensation for marrow donors would set a precedent that could hurt the current voluntary systems for organ and blood donation, potentially undermining some patients’ access to safe organ transplants and blood transfusions. If donors were compensated, the United States would no longer conform to international standards for the use of volunteer donors in cell therapies. Thus, patients in the United States may be unable to have access to the worldwide search process. This would restrict Americans’ chances of finding a match and lives may be lost. "
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Kidney exchange time series
What is this sequence? 2, 4, 6, 19, 34, 27, 74, 121, 240, 304...
It is the number of "Non-Biol,unrel: Paired Exchange" kidney transplants in the OPTN database, i.e. the number of kidney transplants in which the donor was not a blood relative or married to the recipient, arranged by kidney exchange, in the years 2000-2009, by year. (Kidney exchange is also called paired kidney donation, kidney paired donation--KPD, and paired kidney exchange.)
Note the accelerating upward trend: the number of transplants through kidney exchange has grown by a factor of 9 since a comprehensive integration of living and deceased transplantations through both cycles and chains was proposed in 2004. For logistical reasons, the New England Program for Kidney Exchange (NEPKE) and the Alliance for Paired Donation (APD) initially started with exchanges between just two pairs. But soon larger exchanges and chains started to be commonplace, and today a nonnegligible part of the most recent growth is due to non-simultaneous chains.
The best practices seem to be spreading from hospital to hospital pretty well, organized by growing regional and other networks that coordinate exchanges. Sometimes there's some mis-coordination. There is still talk of a national exchange, although medical and other politics at a national level have so far raised some obstacles that need to be overcome.
In some moods I'm surprised that it has come so far so fast. In other moods I'm frustrated at how very slowly things have progressed. There's still lots of room to grow, and the need for kidney transplants keeps growing faster than the supply.
update: the OPTN data report requires a number of clicks once you get to their website, it is from the report "Living Donor Transplants By Donor Relation U.S. Transplants Performed : January 1, 1988 - February 28, 2010 For Organ = Kidney.
Starting from the web page http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/ , I choose “national data,” then choose category transplant, organ kidney, then click on Living Transplant by Donor Relation…
It is the number of "Non-Biol,unrel: Paired Exchange" kidney transplants in the OPTN database, i.e. the number of kidney transplants in which the donor was not a blood relative or married to the recipient, arranged by kidney exchange, in the years 2000-2009, by year. (Kidney exchange is also called paired kidney donation, kidney paired donation--KPD, and paired kidney exchange.)
Note the accelerating upward trend: the number of transplants through kidney exchange has grown by a factor of 9 since a comprehensive integration of living and deceased transplantations through both cycles and chains was proposed in 2004. For logistical reasons, the New England Program for Kidney Exchange (NEPKE) and the Alliance for Paired Donation (APD) initially started with exchanges between just two pairs. But soon larger exchanges and chains started to be commonplace, and today a nonnegligible part of the most recent growth is due to non-simultaneous chains.
The best practices seem to be spreading from hospital to hospital pretty well, organized by growing regional and other networks that coordinate exchanges. Sometimes there's some mis-coordination. There is still talk of a national exchange, although medical and other politics at a national level have so far raised some obstacles that need to be overcome.
In some moods I'm surprised that it has come so far so fast. In other moods I'm frustrated at how very slowly things have progressed. There's still lots of room to grow, and the need for kidney transplants keeps growing faster than the supply.
update: the OPTN data report requires a number of clicks once you get to their website, it is from the report "Living Donor Transplants By Donor Relation U.S. Transplants Performed : January 1, 1988 - February 28, 2010 For Organ = Kidney.
Starting from the web page http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/ , I choose “national data,” then choose category transplant, organ kidney, then click on Living Transplant by Donor Relation…
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Moral judgments about economic transactions: Luke Coffman
Lucas (Luke) Coffman defended his dissertation yesterday. He's an eclectic experimenter, and one of his papers looks at the assignment of credit or blame, and how that is influenced by the presence of intermediaries. For example (to pick a Harvard-centric one), is Harvard viewed differently if it hires janitors directly at a low wage than if it contracts with a janitorial services company that employs the janitors?
The baseline condition of one of his experiments is easy to describe: one participant (who you can think of as Harvard) is endowed with $10, which he can divide with a second participant (who you can think of as a janitor), or instead can sell the right to divide the $10 to a third participant (who you can think of as the janitorial services company). Luke then elicits a judgment of the transaction from a fourth party, who is able to punish the first party by reducing his payoff. The results are clear: for a given (low) amount delivered to the “janitor,” punishments are considerably reduced if it is delivered indirectly, through a third party, rather than directly.
Luke designed and conducted many careful controls to better understand what is going on, and rule out plausible alternative hypotheses. (For one thing, choosing to use an intermediary doesn’t seem to fool anyone; people correctly anticipate that using an intermediary will be bad for the lowest paid member of the group, but they nevertheless find it less blameworthy.) One way to think about his results is that they suggest that fairness judgments may be very narrowly framed, and confined more than we had any reason to suspect to very direct interactions, so that intermediated interactions are judged differently than direct interactions.
Luke will be an assistant professor of economics at The Ohio State University next year.
Welcome to the club, Luke.
The baseline condition of one of his experiments is easy to describe: one participant (who you can think of as Harvard) is endowed with $10, which he can divide with a second participant (who you can think of as a janitor), or instead can sell the right to divide the $10 to a third participant (who you can think of as the janitorial services company). Luke then elicits a judgment of the transaction from a fourth party, who is able to punish the first party by reducing his payoff. The results are clear: for a given (low) amount delivered to the “janitor,” punishments are considerably reduced if it is delivered indirectly, through a third party, rather than directly.
Luke designed and conducted many careful controls to better understand what is going on, and rule out plausible alternative hypotheses. (For one thing, choosing to use an intermediary doesn’t seem to fool anyone; people correctly anticipate that using an intermediary will be bad for the lowest paid member of the group, but they nevertheless find it less blameworthy.) One way to think about his results is that they suggest that fairness judgments may be very narrowly framed, and confined more than we had any reason to suspect to very direct interactions, so that intermediated interactions are judged differently than direct interactions.
Luke will be an assistant professor of economics at The Ohio State University next year.
Welcome to the club, Luke.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Angel donors and angel flights in a NEPKE kidney exchange chain
One man's gift of a kidney brings hope to four people*: A NEPKE simultaneous chain, starting with a non-directed donor at Dartmouth.
My close colleague Jerry Green flew two of the kidneys in this exchange, first one from Lebanon, NH to Philadelphia, and then one from Philadelphia to Boston, as part of the Angel Flights program. (He's a private pilot, and his wife Pam accompanies him on these trips as his turbulence control officer...).
*Update: that link doesn't work anymore, but here's the story
My close colleague Jerry Green flew two of the kidneys in this exchange, first one from Lebanon, NH to Philadelphia, and then one from Philadelphia to Boston, as part of the Angel Flights program. (He's a private pilot, and his wife Pam accompanies him on these trips as his turbulence control officer...).
*Update: that link doesn't work anymore, but here's the story
The slave trade had sellers as well as buyers
In a NY Times oped, Ending the Slavery Blame-Game, Henry Louis Gates Jr. writes about the slave trade.
"While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others.
For centuries, Europeans in Africa kept close to their military and trading posts on the coast. Exploration of the interior, home to the bulk of Africans sold into bondage at the height of the slave trade, came only during the colonial conquests, which is why Henry Morton Stanley’s pursuit of Dr. David Livingstone in 1871 made for such compelling press: he was going where no (white) man had gone before.
How did slaves make it to these coastal forts? The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred."
"While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others.
For centuries, Europeans in Africa kept close to their military and trading posts on the coast. Exploration of the interior, home to the bulk of Africans sold into bondage at the height of the slave trade, came only during the colonial conquests, which is why Henry Morton Stanley’s pursuit of Dr. David Livingstone in 1871 made for such compelling press: he was going where no (white) man had gone before.
How did slaves make it to these coastal forts? The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred."
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Prizes as a spur to innovation: a White House memo
A March 2010 White House memo "Guidance on the Use of Challenges and Prizes to Promote Open Government," promotes the use of prizes by agencies of the U.S. government.
"[I]t is Administration policy to strongly encourage agencies to:
• Utilize prizes and challenges as tools for advancing open government, innovation, and the agency’s mission;
• Identify and proactively address legal, regulatory, technical, and other barriers to the use of prizes and challenges;
• Select one or more individuals to identify and implement prizes and challenges, potentially in partnership with outside organizations, and to participate in a government-wide "community of practice" led by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and
• Increase their capacity to support, design, and manage prizes, potentially in collaboration with external partners.
To support agencies in the execution of prizes that further the policy objectives of the Federal Government, the Administration will make available a web-based platform for prizes and challenges within 120 days. This platform will provide a forum for agencies to post problems and invite communities of problem solvers to suggest, collaborate on, and deliver solutions. Over the longer term, the General Services Administration (GSA) will also provide government-wide services to share best practices and assist agencies in developing guidelines for issuing challenges. Additionally, GSA will develop, as expeditiously as possible, a contract vehicle to provide agency access to relevant products and services, including technical assistance in structuring and conducting contests to take maximum benefit of the marketplace as they identify and pursue contest initiatives to further the policy objectives of the Federal Government. "
See also a discussion of prizes in a McKinsey report called “And the winner is …” Capturing the promise of philanthropic prizes .
"[I]t is Administration policy to strongly encourage agencies to:
• Utilize prizes and challenges as tools for advancing open government, innovation, and the agency’s mission;
• Identify and proactively address legal, regulatory, technical, and other barriers to the use of prizes and challenges;
• Select one or more individuals to identify and implement prizes and challenges, potentially in partnership with outside organizations, and to participate in a government-wide "community of practice" led by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and
• Increase their capacity to support, design, and manage prizes, potentially in collaboration with external partners.
To support agencies in the execution of prizes that further the policy objectives of the Federal Government, the Administration will make available a web-based platform for prizes and challenges within 120 days. This platform will provide a forum for agencies to post problems and invite communities of problem solvers to suggest, collaborate on, and deliver solutions. Over the longer term, the General Services Administration (GSA) will also provide government-wide services to share best practices and assist agencies in developing guidelines for issuing challenges. Additionally, GSA will develop, as expeditiously as possible, a contract vehicle to provide agency access to relevant products and services, including technical assistance in structuring and conducting contests to take maximum benefit of the marketplace as they identify and pursue contest initiatives to further the policy objectives of the Federal Government. "
See also a discussion of prizes in a McKinsey report called “And the winner is …” Capturing the promise of philanthropic prizes .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
