Dr. Naveed Saleh, writing in New Physician, describes some of the different prognoses suggested for the new resident scramble (SOAP) which will operate next year: Unscrambling the Match.
"Roth predicts that the rules of the SOAP will be subverted by both programs and applicants eager to match. "If it's really, really tempting for people on both sides to break the rules," says Roth, "often the rules get broken."
Roth suggests that instead of the SOAP, the NRMP and ERAS should institute a properly organized second match during Match Week.
Mona M. Signer, executive director of the NRMP, disagrees with Roth's prediction that decision-making during the SOAP will be strategic. Instead, she predicts that programs and applicants will continue to pursue their best opportunities. Additionally, as with the Match, should a program or applicant violate prescribed rules, sanctions would be imposed.
My previous posts on the residency scramble, and the proposed new rules are here.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Live donor teeth (and George Washington)
Owen Ozier writes: "I have been reading Ron Chernow's 2010 biography of George Washington, and came across a passage about the trade in a different body part - teeth. I hadn't ever heard of this before, but it reminded me of your talk, so I thought I would send it along:
"From chapter 36 of Washington: A Life
"Always a tough, leery customer, Washington was skeptical about claims made for transplanted teeth. The following year, when Le Mayeur performed a successful transplant upon Richard Varick, it made a convert of Washington. According to Mary Thompson, Washington bought nine teeth in 1784 from certain nameless "Negroes" for thirteen shillings apiece.[7] Whether he wanted the teeth implanted directly in his mouth, or incorporated into dentures, we cannot say. However ghoulish this trade sounds to modern readers, it was then standard practice for rich people to purchase teeth from the poor. In his advertisements, Dr. Le Mayeur offered to buy teeth from willing vendors and bid "three guineas for good front teeth from anyone but slaves." [8] This suggests a stigma among white people about having slaves' teeth. We can deduce that Washington's dental transplant miscarried, since by the time of his presidential inauguration in 1789, he had only a single working tooth remaining."
Relevant references appear to be:
[5] Brown, Lawrence Parmly. "The Antiquities of Dental Prosthesis:
Part III, Section 2, Eighteenth Century." Dental Cosmos 76, No. 11, November 1934
[7] Henriques, Peter R. Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington. Charlottesville: UVA Press, 2006, p.154
[8] Unger, Harlow Giles. The Unexpected George Washington: His Private Life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2006, p.163
(Kant also wrote about sale of teeth: see my earlier blog post Kant on compensation for organ donors )
"From chapter 36 of Washington: A Life
"Always a tough, leery customer, Washington was skeptical about claims made for transplanted teeth. The following year, when Le Mayeur performed a successful transplant upon Richard Varick, it made a convert of Washington. According to Mary Thompson, Washington bought nine teeth in 1784 from certain nameless "Negroes" for thirteen shillings apiece.[7] Whether he wanted the teeth implanted directly in his mouth, or incorporated into dentures, we cannot say. However ghoulish this trade sounds to modern readers, it was then standard practice for rich people to purchase teeth from the poor. In his advertisements, Dr. Le Mayeur offered to buy teeth from willing vendors and bid "three guineas for good front teeth from anyone but slaves." [8] This suggests a stigma among white people about having slaves' teeth. We can deduce that Washington's dental transplant miscarried, since by the time of his presidential inauguration in 1789, he had only a single working tooth remaining."
Relevant references appear to be:
[5] Brown, Lawrence Parmly. "The Antiquities of Dental Prosthesis:
Part III, Section 2, Eighteenth Century." Dental Cosmos 76, No. 11, November 1934
[7] Henriques, Peter R. Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington. Charlottesville: UVA Press, 2006, p.154
[8] Unger, Harlow Giles. The Unexpected George Washington: His Private Life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2006, p.163
(Kant also wrote about sale of teeth: see my earlier blog post Kant on compensation for organ donors )
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Swoopo: gone but not forgotten
Swoopo is reported to be bankrupt: Goodnight, Swoopo: The Pay-Per-Bid Auction Site Is Dead
I blogged in 2009 about A proliferation of penny auctions, and when I looked back at it just now, I saw that it attracted a bunch of spammish comments from penny auction sites...
HT: Peter Coles
I blogged in 2009 about A proliferation of penny auctions, and when I looked back at it just now, I saw that it attracted a bunch of spammish comments from penny auction sites...
HT: Peter Coles
Saturday, April 9, 2011
2011 Summer School: Market Failure and Market Design
2011 Summer School. Market Failure and Market Design, Louvain-la-Neuve, May 23-26, 2011
To submit a paper: Those interested should submit a title for their presentation AND a paper as well as your curriculum vitae by April 10 to Sylvie Mauroy. The selection of speakers and preliminary program will be announced by April 26.
To register (without presenting a paper): Just send an e-mail to Nancy De Munck or Sylvie Mauroy with your complete affiliation. There is no registration fee, but registration is NECESSARY before May 10.
Keynote Speakers:
Douglas BERNHEIM, Stanford University
Lecture 1: Poverty and Self-Control
Lecture 2: Applied Behavioral Welfare Economics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Lecture 3: Revealed Preference without Choice
Vincent CRAWFORD, University of Oxford
Lecture 1: Strategic Thinking
Lecture 2: Level-k Auctions (paper 1 - paper 2 )
Lecture 3: Efficient Mechanisms for Level-k Bilateral Trading
Parag PATHAK, Massuchusetts Institute of Technology
Organizing committee:
Jean Hindriks, CORE, Université catholique de Louvain
Georg Kirchsteiger, ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles
François Maniquet, CORE, Université catholique de Louvain
HT: Bettina Klaus
To submit a paper: Those interested should submit a title for their presentation AND a paper as well as your curriculum vitae by April 10 to Sylvie Mauroy. The selection of speakers and preliminary program will be announced by April 26.
To register (without presenting a paper): Just send an e-mail to Nancy De Munck or Sylvie Mauroy with your complete affiliation. There is no registration fee, but registration is NECESSARY before May 10.
Keynote Speakers:
Douglas BERNHEIM, Stanford University
Lecture 1: Poverty and Self-Control
Lecture 2: Applied Behavioral Welfare Economics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Lecture 3: Revealed Preference without Choice
Vincent CRAWFORD, University of Oxford
Lecture 1: Strategic Thinking
Lecture 2: Level-k Auctions (paper 1 - paper 2 )
Lecture 3: Efficient Mechanisms for Level-k Bilateral Trading
Parag PATHAK, Massuchusetts Institute of Technology
Organizing committee:
Jean Hindriks, CORE, Université catholique de Louvain
Georg Kirchsteiger, ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles
François Maniquet, CORE, Université catholique de Louvain
HT: Bettina Klaus
Should there be a donor kidney market? Latest version of a familiar debate
The Los Angeles Times published a short debate between two familiar interlocuters, Ben Hippen and Frank Delmonico: Pro/con The consequences of a donor kidney market
"With a waiting list for a kidney at almost 83,000 Americans, the push to offer cash and other incentives grows. Two experts offer their opposing views on a donor kidney market."
"People who need kidneys are dying unnecessarily, and an organ market would save lives."
Dr. Benjamin Hippen is a transplant nephrologist at the Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C.
"The most compelling reason for setting up a market for organs is that there really isn't any other plausible solution to the growing disparity between the demand for and supply of organs. Even if we were to maximize organ procurement from deceased donors, we still couldn't meet the demand.
"As that demand grows, it's not just potential kidney recipients who get desperate — it's also potential donors, who often have a close-up view of what their loved ones are going through. We then see people with health problems, like high blood pressure or obesity, say that they're willing to take on a certain amount of risk so that their loved one can live a better life.
"A regulated market would be, in some sense, safer — the pressure would be taken off folks who want to be donors but perhaps shouldn't be for medical reasons. Transplant professionals could then select the healthiest donors, who are at the lowest risk for long-term complications. With a regulated market, we could say to high risk-donor candidates, "No, you shouldn't be a donor, and your loved one isn't going to suffer as a consequence of that decision."
"There's also a significant difference between what it costs to maintain a transplant versus what it costs to maintain someone on dialysis. In 2007, $28 billion was spent nationally on people on dialysis; about $2.2 billion was allocated to kidney transplantation. So transplants are vastly more cost-effective, and in general they confer a longer survival benefit. Also, a larger proportion of people are able to go back to work compared with people on dialysis.
"The unregulated, underground black market in organs in developing countries has been catastrophic for both donors and recipients. But the reason that someone who is desperately poor may be able to sell their kidney on the black market is that people in countries of comparative wealth have failed to solve their own supply problem. That is a policy failure. If the demand for organs could be met through legal, ethical strategies, some of the driving forces that support black markets would disappear.
"If, indeed, the current system isn't meeting demand, then there's a sense in which it's unethical not to establish regulated incentives for living donors or to think more carefully about not doing so. The cost is being paid by the people who are dying on the waiting list, getting sicker on dialysis or selling their kidneys under terrible circumstances."
"An organ market would exploit the world's poor and set the precedent for medical transplant tourism that puts everyone at risk."
Dr. Francis Delmonico is the director of renal transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School. He is also the medical director of the New England Organ Bank in Newton, Mass.
"Despite the good intentions of those who would suggest that an organ market could be regulated, it's impossible to do so. A market for organ sales enables brokers and extra payments, and in a global society, the market could not be restricted to the United States.
"Right now, our country sets the tone on this issue. Once we say it's OK to have a market here, it condones markets everywhere else in the world, and with medical tourism being what it is, those in search of kidneys will go to the place where it's the cheapest price — Americans won't be limited to undergoing transplants locally.
"From there, transplant tourism in global markets brings unanticipated consequences. It increases the risk for diseases like hepatitis, tuberculosis or malignancy, and it also opens the door to a variety of unethical practices involving the donor and their medical care.
"The central problem of organ sales is that it's a victimization and exploitation of poor people, notwithstanding good intention. The source of these organs is always the lowest socioeconomic class of a particular country — we know that has been the case in the Philippines, in Pakistan, in Egypt and in Iran. And the payment isn't that substantial of an amount, so rather than making them better off or helping them, the money is quickly used, and the donor is left with one less kidney. It's a reality that there's no escaping.
"It's true that there has been a plateau of living donors in this country, and something has to be done. For that reason, I do believe in eliminating disincentives for donors. The living donor who doesn't have health insurance should have it — and even life insurance — provided for them, as it pertains to the donation event."
HT: Ted Roth
"With a waiting list for a kidney at almost 83,000 Americans, the push to offer cash and other incentives grows. Two experts offer their opposing views on a donor kidney market."
"People who need kidneys are dying unnecessarily, and an organ market would save lives."
Dr. Benjamin Hippen is a transplant nephrologist at the Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, N.C.
"The most compelling reason for setting up a market for organs is that there really isn't any other plausible solution to the growing disparity between the demand for and supply of organs. Even if we were to maximize organ procurement from deceased donors, we still couldn't meet the demand.
"As that demand grows, it's not just potential kidney recipients who get desperate — it's also potential donors, who often have a close-up view of what their loved ones are going through. We then see people with health problems, like high blood pressure or obesity, say that they're willing to take on a certain amount of risk so that their loved one can live a better life.
"A regulated market would be, in some sense, safer — the pressure would be taken off folks who want to be donors but perhaps shouldn't be for medical reasons. Transplant professionals could then select the healthiest donors, who are at the lowest risk for long-term complications. With a regulated market, we could say to high risk-donor candidates, "No, you shouldn't be a donor, and your loved one isn't going to suffer as a consequence of that decision."
"There's also a significant difference between what it costs to maintain a transplant versus what it costs to maintain someone on dialysis. In 2007, $28 billion was spent nationally on people on dialysis; about $2.2 billion was allocated to kidney transplantation. So transplants are vastly more cost-effective, and in general they confer a longer survival benefit. Also, a larger proportion of people are able to go back to work compared with people on dialysis.
"The unregulated, underground black market in organs in developing countries has been catastrophic for both donors and recipients. But the reason that someone who is desperately poor may be able to sell their kidney on the black market is that people in countries of comparative wealth have failed to solve their own supply problem. That is a policy failure. If the demand for organs could be met through legal, ethical strategies, some of the driving forces that support black markets would disappear.
"If, indeed, the current system isn't meeting demand, then there's a sense in which it's unethical not to establish regulated incentives for living donors or to think more carefully about not doing so. The cost is being paid by the people who are dying on the waiting list, getting sicker on dialysis or selling their kidneys under terrible circumstances."
"An organ market would exploit the world's poor and set the precedent for medical transplant tourism that puts everyone at risk."
Dr. Francis Delmonico is the director of renal transplantation at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School. He is also the medical director of the New England Organ Bank in Newton, Mass.
"Despite the good intentions of those who would suggest that an organ market could be regulated, it's impossible to do so. A market for organ sales enables brokers and extra payments, and in a global society, the market could not be restricted to the United States.
"Right now, our country sets the tone on this issue. Once we say it's OK to have a market here, it condones markets everywhere else in the world, and with medical tourism being what it is, those in search of kidneys will go to the place where it's the cheapest price — Americans won't be limited to undergoing transplants locally.
"From there, transplant tourism in global markets brings unanticipated consequences. It increases the risk for diseases like hepatitis, tuberculosis or malignancy, and it also opens the door to a variety of unethical practices involving the donor and their medical care.
"The central problem of organ sales is that it's a victimization and exploitation of poor people, notwithstanding good intention. The source of these organs is always the lowest socioeconomic class of a particular country — we know that has been the case in the Philippines, in Pakistan, in Egypt and in Iran. And the payment isn't that substantial of an amount, so rather than making them better off or helping them, the money is quickly used, and the donor is left with one less kidney. It's a reality that there's no escaping.
"It's true that there has been a plateau of living donors in this country, and something has to be done. For that reason, I do believe in eliminating disincentives for donors. The living donor who doesn't have health insurance should have it — and even life insurance — provided for them, as it pertains to the donation event."
HT: Ted Roth
Friday, April 8, 2011
Medicare payments for dialysis
The New York Times describes the growing federal expenses for dialysis, and some surrounding controversy: When Ailments Pile Up, Asking Patients to Rethink Free Dialysis
"Of all the terrible chronic diseases, only one —end-stage kidney disease — gets special treatment by the federal government. A law passed by Congress 39 years ago provides nearly free care to almost all patients whose kidneys have failed, regardless of their age or ability to pay.
"But the law has had unintended consequences, kidney experts say. It was meant to keep young and middle-aged people alive and productive. Instead, many of the patients who take advantage of the law are old and have other medical problems, often suffering through dialysis as a replacement for their failed kidneys but not living long because the other chronic diseases kill them.
"Kidney specialists are pushing doctors to be more forthright with elderly people who have other serious medical conditions, to tell the patients that even though they are entitled to dialysis, they may want to decline such treatment and enter a hospice instead. In the end, it is always the patient’s choice.
...
"When Congress established the entitlement to pay for kidney patients in October 1972, dialysis and transplants were new procedures that were not covered by health insurance. There were horrifying stories — rich people got dialysis and lived while poor people died. In Seattle, a committee meted out dialysis by voting on who could get it. A man who was supporting a family, for example, took precedence over a single woman.
"It also was expected at that time that fewer than 40 patients per million would need dialysis, and that most of those patients would be healthy — except for their failed kidneys — and under age 54.
"Now more than 400 people per million start dialysis each year. More than a third of the patients are 65 or older, and they account for about 42 percent of the costs. People over 75 make up the fastest-growing group of dialysis patients. And most elderly dialysis patients have other serious diseases like diabetes, heart failure, stroke and even advanced dementia. One-third of them have four or more chronic conditions.
"The federal program, said Dr. Peter S. Aronson, a professor of nephrology at Yale University’s School of Medicine “is so emblematic of good intentions misapplied.”
“The question,” Dr. Aronson said, “is how to dial it back.”
"Recent studies have found that dialysis does not prolong life for many elderly people with other serious chronic illnesses. One study found that the procedure’s main effect is to increase the chances that such patients will die in the hospital rather than at home.
"Meanwhile, costs are soaring — end-stage kidney disease will cost the nation an estimated $40 billion to $50 billion this year."
"Of all the terrible chronic diseases, only one —end-stage kidney disease — gets special treatment by the federal government. A law passed by Congress 39 years ago provides nearly free care to almost all patients whose kidneys have failed, regardless of their age or ability to pay.
"But the law has had unintended consequences, kidney experts say. It was meant to keep young and middle-aged people alive and productive. Instead, many of the patients who take advantage of the law are old and have other medical problems, often suffering through dialysis as a replacement for their failed kidneys but not living long because the other chronic diseases kill them.
"Kidney specialists are pushing doctors to be more forthright with elderly people who have other serious medical conditions, to tell the patients that even though they are entitled to dialysis, they may want to decline such treatment and enter a hospice instead. In the end, it is always the patient’s choice.
...
"When Congress established the entitlement to pay for kidney patients in October 1972, dialysis and transplants were new procedures that were not covered by health insurance. There were horrifying stories — rich people got dialysis and lived while poor people died. In Seattle, a committee meted out dialysis by voting on who could get it. A man who was supporting a family, for example, took precedence over a single woman.
"It also was expected at that time that fewer than 40 patients per million would need dialysis, and that most of those patients would be healthy — except for their failed kidneys — and under age 54.
"Now more than 400 people per million start dialysis each year. More than a third of the patients are 65 or older, and they account for about 42 percent of the costs. People over 75 make up the fastest-growing group of dialysis patients. And most elderly dialysis patients have other serious diseases like diabetes, heart failure, stroke and even advanced dementia. One-third of them have four or more chronic conditions.
"The federal program, said Dr. Peter S. Aronson, a professor of nephrology at Yale University’s School of Medicine “is so emblematic of good intentions misapplied.”
“The question,” Dr. Aronson said, “is how to dial it back.”
"Recent studies have found that dialysis does not prolong life for many elderly people with other serious chronic illnesses. One study found that the procedure’s main effect is to increase the chances that such patients will die in the hospital rather than at home.
"Meanwhile, costs are soaring — end-stage kidney disease will cost the nation an estimated $40 billion to $50 billion this year."
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Donation after cardiac death
When are you dead? An article in Stanford Medicine explores the question, which becomes pointed when the subject is deceased organ donation. The standard criterion in the U.S. is brain death, but of course irreversible cessation of heartbeat is an older standard. The trouble is that organs have to be preserved fast after cardiac death, unlike the case of a brain dead patient on a ventilator.
So there are obstacles to donation after cardiac death (DCD). Most of the discussion of restricting organ donation to brain dead patients focuses on the desperately needed organs that are made unavailable to the patients who need them. So I was struck by this view from another angle, by Nikole Neidlinger, MD, the medical director of the California Donor Transplant Network.
“A lot of people think that it’s all about the organ recipient, but really, I think, the donors’ families get the biggest benefit,” Neidlinger says. “They have spent perhaps weeks dealing with the hardship of seeing loved ones on life support and coming to terms with their death. And the fact that the donor gets a chance to help another person live — it’s a legacy that counts so much for families.”
So there are obstacles to donation after cardiac death (DCD). Most of the discussion of restricting organ donation to brain dead patients focuses on the desperately needed organs that are made unavailable to the patients who need them. So I was struck by this view from another angle, by Nikole Neidlinger, MD, the medical director of the California Donor Transplant Network.
“A lot of people think that it’s all about the organ recipient, but really, I think, the donors’ families get the biggest benefit,” Neidlinger says. “They have spent perhaps weeks dealing with the hardship of seeing loved ones on life support and coming to terms with their death. And the fact that the donor gets a chance to help another person live — it’s a legacy that counts so much for families.”
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Redesigning the market for bribes (by making some bribes legal to give)
The Wall Street Journal reports that Kaushik Basu, currently on leave from Cornell as Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, has been thinking about how to reduce the incidence of bribe taking in India by officials who require bribes to deliver (legal) services that they are supposed to provide as part of their government duties. His idea is to make it legal to give a bribe in such a case, while keeping it illegal to demand or receive one, so that after the fact the bribe givers could report/testify against corrupt officials without being treated as their partners in crime.
Here's the WSJ story: Kaushik Basu Says Make Bribe Giving Legal, and here's the working paper from the Indian Ministry of Finance: Why, for a Class of Bribes, the Act of Giving a Bribe should be Treated as Legal
HT: Tabarrok at MR
Here's the WSJ story: Kaushik Basu Says Make Bribe Giving Legal, and here's the working paper from the Indian Ministry of Finance: Why, for a Class of Bribes, the Act of Giving a Bribe should be Treated as Legal
HT: Tabarrok at MR
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Review of kidney exchange
Here's a new article reviewing developments in kidney exchange, aka kidney paired donation (not "published" yet, but just appeared online):
Kidney paired donation
C. Bradley Wallis; Kannan P. Samy; Alvin E. Roth; Michael A. Rees
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2011; doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfr155
Kidney paired donation
C. Bradley Wallis; Kannan P. Samy; Alvin E. Roth; Michael A. Rees
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2011; doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfr155
Full Text:
|
Abstract
Kidney paired donation (KPD) was first suggested in 1986, but it was not until 2000 when the first paired donation transplant was performed in the USA. In the past decade, KPD has become the fastest growing source of transplantable kidneys, overcoming the barrier faced by living donors deemed incompatible with their intended recipients. This review provides a basic overview of the concepts and challenges faced by KPD as we prepare for a national pilot program with the United Network for Organ Sharing. Several different algorithms have been creatively implemented in the USA and elsewhere to transplant paired donors, each method uniquely contributing to the success of KPD. As the paired donor pool grows, the problem of determining allocation strategies that maximize equity and utility will become increasingly important as the transplant community seeks to balance quality and quantity in choosing the best matches. Financing for paired donation is a major issue, as philanthropy alone cannot support the emerging national system. We also discuss the advent of altruistic or non-directed donors in KPD, and the important role of chains in addition to exchanges. This review is designed to provide insight into the challenges that face the emerging national KPD system in the USA, now 5 years into its development.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The gastro fellowship match after five years
A recent article takes stock of the Gastroenterology fellowship match, five years after it was reinstated with some new design rules (about exploding offers):
The Match: Five Years Later, by Deborah D. Proctor et al., Gastroenterology 2011;140:15–18
Proctor et al. report considerable progress, although they continue to monitor violations of market policy. There seems to be a particular issue with respect to research positions.
"...the NRMP/SMS was uniquely set up for our many diverse program offerings. Four tracks were created—Clinical, Clinical Investigator Research, Basic Science Research, and Research—and a reversion process was implemented for the 4 tracks, such that unfilled slots from 1 track could revert to open slots in another track. The GI Match successfully reopened in January 2006 with a match day in June 2006 for fellowship positions starting in July 2007."
...
"However, we must recognize that not all programs are eager or willing to participate in the Match process."
...
"The number of fellowship applicants genuinely committed to an academic research career has been
slowly declining. Simultaneously, competition has stiffened for the grant dollars that pay for these research training positions, and the criteria to renew grant support has become more demanding.
Needless to say, the competition for these increasingly scarce, well-qualified, research-track applicants has become fierce, and the authors are aware of several examples during the last application cycle of candidates interested in research being offered fellowship positions outside the Match.
...
"Although the statistics continue to demonstrate that Match participation is robust, healthy, and gradually increasing, there is also a growing desire to close the loopholes in Match rules that allow a small minority of programs to take unfair advantage of applicants and colleagues."
***************
To summarize the overall encouraging statistics, in the (2006) Match for 2007 positions, 283 positions were offered and 585 applicants applied, of whom 276 were matched. In the Match for 2011 positions, 383 positions were offered to 642 applicants, of whom 362 were matched.
Here are some papers reporting various elements of the Gastroenterology market design.
The match offers programs the ability to have unfilled positions of one kind (e.g. research positions) revert to other kinds of positions via the Roth-Peranson algorithm (see
Roth, A. E. and Elliott Peranson, "The Redesign of the Matching Market for American Physicians: Some Engineering Aspects of Economic Design American Economic Review, 89, 4, September, 1999, 748-780.)
The Match: Five Years Later, by Deborah D. Proctor et al., Gastroenterology 2011;140:15–18
Proctor et al. report considerable progress, although they continue to monitor violations of market policy. There seems to be a particular issue with respect to research positions.
"...the NRMP/SMS was uniquely set up for our many diverse program offerings. Four tracks were created—Clinical, Clinical Investigator Research, Basic Science Research, and Research—and a reversion process was implemented for the 4 tracks, such that unfilled slots from 1 track could revert to open slots in another track. The GI Match successfully reopened in January 2006 with a match day in June 2006 for fellowship positions starting in July 2007."
...
"However, we must recognize that not all programs are eager or willing to participate in the Match process."
...
"The number of fellowship applicants genuinely committed to an academic research career has been
slowly declining. Simultaneously, competition has stiffened for the grant dollars that pay for these research training positions, and the criteria to renew grant support has become more demanding.
Needless to say, the competition for these increasingly scarce, well-qualified, research-track applicants has become fierce, and the authors are aware of several examples during the last application cycle of candidates interested in research being offered fellowship positions outside the Match.
...
"Although the statistics continue to demonstrate that Match participation is robust, healthy, and gradually increasing, there is also a growing desire to close the loopholes in Match rules that allow a small minority of programs to take unfair advantage of applicants and colleagues."
***************
To summarize the overall encouraging statistics, in the (2006) Match for 2007 positions, 283 positions were offered and 585 applicants applied, of whom 276 were matched. In the Match for 2011 positions, 383 positions were offered to 642 applicants, of whom 362 were matched.
Here are some papers reporting various elements of the Gastroenterology market design.
The match offers programs the ability to have unfilled positions of one kind (e.g. research positions) revert to other kinds of positions via the Roth-Peranson algorithm (see
Roth, A. E. and Elliott Peranson, "The Redesign of the Matching Market for American Physicians: Some Engineering Aspects of Economic Design American Economic Review, 89, 4, September, 1999, 748-780.)
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Profile in the Boston Globe: "The Matchmaker"
Leon Neyfakh writes about me and market design in the Sunday Boston Globe:
The Matchmaker: The Harvard economist who stopped just studying the world and began trying to fix it
Saturday, April 2, 2011
LCD Soundsystem and ticket scalping
Jacob Leshno (who is a fan of both market design and LCD soundsystem) writes to alert me to some stories about their "final" concert today, how scalpers using software bots acquired most of the tickets as soon as they went on sale, and how the band responded by scheduling more concerts.
Hipsters v. Scalpers: How LCD Soundsystem is trying to foil professional ticket resellers.
"But LCD fans were not left out in the cold. The debacle attracted the wrath of the band's charismatic front man, James Murphy. On LCD Soundsystem's blog, he wrote: "this here is just to say that we were more than taken aback and surprised about the speed of ticket sales for the april 2nd MSG gig, as well as the effectiveness of scalper pieces of fucking shit at getting their hands on said tickets before fans could, and it's knocked us on our asses."
"The market had failed in his mind. He told fans not to pay thousands of dollars to get into the Madison Square Garden show: "I will try to figure a way out to fuck these fuckers. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, IT IS NOT WORTH THAT KIND OF MONEY TO SEE US!" Soon enough, he realized he had an ace up his sleeve. He flooded the market, adding shows, upping ticket supply, and hopefully pushing prices down. (Those shows will go on sale this Friday.)"
See also
Tickets To Hide: Bands that scalp their own tickets and other true tales from the world of live music.
and
fuck you, scalpers. terminal 5 shows added.
Hipsters v. Scalpers: How LCD Soundsystem is trying to foil professional ticket resellers.
"But LCD fans were not left out in the cold. The debacle attracted the wrath of the band's charismatic front man, James Murphy. On LCD Soundsystem's blog, he wrote: "this here is just to say that we were more than taken aback and surprised about the speed of ticket sales for the april 2nd MSG gig, as well as the effectiveness of scalper pieces of fucking shit at getting their hands on said tickets before fans could, and it's knocked us on our asses."
"The market had failed in his mind. He told fans not to pay thousands of dollars to get into the Madison Square Garden show: "I will try to figure a way out to fuck these fuckers. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, IT IS NOT WORTH THAT KIND OF MONEY TO SEE US!" Soon enough, he realized he had an ace up his sleeve. He flooded the market, adding shows, upping ticket supply, and hopefully pushing prices down. (Those shows will go on sale this Friday.)"
See also
Tickets To Hide: Bands that scalp their own tickets and other true tales from the world of live music.
and
fuck you, scalpers. terminal 5 shows added.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Matching and Price Theory
That's the name of a conference being held at the Milton Friedman Institute: Matching and Price Theory, May 6-7, 2011
Friday, May 6:
9:00 - 9:50 am The College Admissions Problem with a Continuum of Students
Eduardo Azevedo (Harvard University) and Jacob Leshno (Harvard University)
9:50 - 10:40 am Stability and Competitive Equilibrium in Trading Networks
John Hatfield (Stanford University), Scott Kominers (Harvard University), Michael Ostrovsky (Stanford University), Alexandru Nichifor (University of Maastricht) and Alexander Westkamp
(University of Bonn)
10:55 - 11:45 am Sorting and Factor Intensity: Production and Unemployment across
Skills, Jan Eeckhout (University of Pennsylvania) and Philipp Kircher (London School of Economics)
11:45 - 12:20 pm Discussion led by Eric Budish (University of Chicago)
12:20 - 1:50 pm Lunch
1:50 – 2:40 pm Hedonic Price Equilibria, Stable Matching, and Optimal Transport: Equivalence, Topology, and Uniqueness, Pierre-André Chiappori (New York University), Robert McCann (University of Toronto), and Lars Nesheim (University College London)
2:40 – 3:30 pm Distinguishing the Payoffs of Upstream and Downstream Firms in Matching Games, Jeremy Fox (University of Chicago)
3:30 – 4:05 pm Discussion led by Ariel Pakes (Harvard University)
4:20 – 5:10 pm Strategyproofness and Manipulability in Large Economies, Eduardo Azevedo (Harvard University) and Eric Budish (University of Chicago)
5:10 – 5:45 pm Discussion led by John Hatfield (Stanford University)
Saturday, May 7:
9:00 - 9:50 am Decentralized Matching with Aligned Preferences, Muriel Nederle (Stanford University) and Leeat Yariv (California University of Technology)
9:50 - 10:40 am TBA, Ilya Segal (Stanford University)
10:40 – 11:15 am Discussion led by Alvin Roth (Harvard University)
11:30 - 12:30 pm Panel and Audience Discussion on Open Questions, Gary Becker (University of Chicago), James Heckman (University of Chicago), Paul Milgrom (Stanford University) and Alvin Roth (Harvard University)
Register online here
Friday, May 6:
9:00 - 9:50 am The College Admissions Problem with a Continuum of Students
Eduardo Azevedo (Harvard University) and Jacob Leshno (Harvard University)
9:50 - 10:40 am Stability and Competitive Equilibrium in Trading Networks
John Hatfield (Stanford University), Scott Kominers (Harvard University), Michael Ostrovsky (Stanford University), Alexandru Nichifor (University of Maastricht) and Alexander Westkamp
(University of Bonn)
10:55 - 11:45 am Sorting and Factor Intensity: Production and Unemployment across
Skills, Jan Eeckhout (University of Pennsylvania) and Philipp Kircher (London School of Economics)
11:45 - 12:20 pm Discussion led by Eric Budish (University of Chicago)
12:20 - 1:50 pm Lunch
1:50 – 2:40 pm Hedonic Price Equilibria, Stable Matching, and Optimal Transport: Equivalence, Topology, and Uniqueness, Pierre-André Chiappori (New York University), Robert McCann (University of Toronto), and Lars Nesheim (University College London)
2:40 – 3:30 pm Distinguishing the Payoffs of Upstream and Downstream Firms in Matching Games, Jeremy Fox (University of Chicago)
3:30 – 4:05 pm Discussion led by Ariel Pakes (Harvard University)
4:20 – 5:10 pm Strategyproofness and Manipulability in Large Economies, Eduardo Azevedo (Harvard University) and Eric Budish (University of Chicago)
5:10 – 5:45 pm Discussion led by John Hatfield (Stanford University)
Saturday, May 7:
9:00 - 9:50 am Decentralized Matching with Aligned Preferences, Muriel Nederle (Stanford University) and Leeat Yariv (California University of Technology)
9:50 - 10:40 am TBA, Ilya Segal (Stanford University)
10:40 – 11:15 am Discussion led by Alvin Roth (Harvard University)
11:30 - 12:30 pm Panel and Audience Discussion on Open Questions, Gary Becker (University of Chicago), James Heckman (University of Chicago), Paul Milgrom (Stanford University) and Alvin Roth (Harvard University)
Register online here
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Boston Globe on school choice
The Boston Globe has a series of articles and videos on the Boston School choice system, and the experience of getting in, or not, to your first choice schools: GETTING IN: INSIDE BOSTON’S SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT MAZE.
Part of the message is that there aren't enough pre-K seats to fill the demand. And, as one parent points out, "the lottery is not the problem, the problem is that there are bad schools."
Here are the articles so far, in reverse order of appearance (I make a 45 second appearance in the video in the "Relief..." story, starting just about minute 1:15...and then again for a moment right at the end, at 5:20):
Part of the message is that there aren't enough pre-K seats to fill the demand. And, as one parent points out, "the lottery is not the problem, the problem is that there are bad schools."
Here are the articles so far, in reverse order of appearance (I make a 45 second appearance in the video in the "Relief..." story, starting just about minute 1:15...and then again for a moment right at the end, at 5:20):
Relief, dismay, even guilt greet student placements
Boston public schools’ lottery, a system designed to distribute students without bias, can inevitably cause divisions among winners and losers.Taking a chance, making a choice
The lottery assigning kindergartners to classrooms is designed to be fair, but with too few good schools to choose from, too many opt to leave.Selection process starts with choices, ends with luck
In the Boston public schools, kindergarten registration can be a saga that plays out from the time a child is 3.Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Kim Krawiec reflects on organ donation
I recently gave a talk at Duke U. Law School, on my paper with Judd Kessler (who will be a professor at Wharton next year). In the law school manner, I didn't present the paper, but responded briefly to two discussants, Kim Krawiec and Kieran Healy, and then answered questions. It was a novel experience for me, and great fun. Both Kim and Kieran are well informed about organ donation and related matters, and gracious hosts.
Now Kim has posted some of her comments on The Faculty Lounge: Al Roth: The Pied Piper of Repugnance?
Now Kim has posted some of her comments on The Faculty Lounge: Al Roth: The Pied Piper of Repugnance?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Report from the front on the war for talent
From a recent NY Times article on recruiting in Silicon Valley:
"Two executives at a small start-up who spoke on the condition of anonymity said it recently lost an intern when one of the biggest start-ups offered the candidate a 40 percent bump in stock options, potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars — but only if the candidate accepted the job before hanging up the phone.
“The atmosphere is brutally competitive,” said Keith Rabois, a Silicon Valley veteran and chief operating officer at Square, where Mr. Firestone works. “Recruiting in Silicon Valley is more competitive and intense and furious than college football recruiting of high school athletes.”
...
"Tech recruiters have also expanded their searches. They still scout college campuses, particularly Stanford’s computer science department, where this year it was common for seniors to receive half a dozen offers by the end of first semester. But since college degrees are not mandatory, recruiters are also going to computer coding competitions and parties, in search of talent that is reminiscent of the dot-com mania."
Does anyone know some talented high school PHP, Ruby and Python programmers? (Or maybe they are already teaching those things in kindergarten?)
"Two executives at a small start-up who spoke on the condition of anonymity said it recently lost an intern when one of the biggest start-ups offered the candidate a 40 percent bump in stock options, potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars — but only if the candidate accepted the job before hanging up the phone.
“The atmosphere is brutally competitive,” said Keith Rabois, a Silicon Valley veteran and chief operating officer at Square, where Mr. Firestone works. “Recruiting in Silicon Valley is more competitive and intense and furious than college football recruiting of high school athletes.”
...
"Tech recruiters have also expanded their searches. They still scout college campuses, particularly Stanford’s computer science department, where this year it was common for seniors to receive half a dozen offers by the end of first semester. But since college degrees are not mandatory, recruiters are also going to computer coding competitions and parties, in search of talent that is reminiscent of the dot-com mania."
Does anyone know some talented high school PHP, Ruby and Python programmers? (Or maybe they are already teaching those things in kindergarten?)
Monday, March 28, 2011
Same sex marriage still a repugnant transaction in Maryland
Same-Sex Marriage Bill Falls Short in Maryland
"The speaker of Maryland’s Democratic-controlled House of Delegates, Michael E. Busch, said that the bill, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, had fallen short of the 71 votes required for passage and that Democrats had decided to withdraw it instead of holding a vote that would fail.
“This is a distance run, not a sprint,” Mr. Busch said. “We’ll come back next year and take a strong look at it.”
"The withdrawal capped a tumultuous few weeks, which began with the bill’s sponsors saying that its passage was all but assured and that Maryland would soon become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.
...
"Two national groups that oppose same-sex marriage, the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council, both highlighted African-American and religious opponents of the bill as central to its defeat.
“Particular thanks must go to the African-American pastors, church members and delegates who spoke out against the attempted hijacking of the concept of ‘civil rights,’ ” the Family Research Council said in a statement.
"Democrats hold 98 of the House’s 141 seats, more than enough to overcome near-total Republican opposition, but ultimately about a third of all Democrats opposed it.
...
"The bill’s supporters would settle for no less than full marriage rights, as are legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia. A Democrat’s proposal to make the bill about civil unions instead of marriage failed.
“The law walks. It doesn’t run,” said Michael A. McDermott, a Republican who supported the civil union alternatiPost Optionsve. “You need to take it a step at a time.”
"The speaker of Maryland’s Democratic-controlled House of Delegates, Michael E. Busch, said that the bill, the Civil Marriage Protection Act, had fallen short of the 71 votes required for passage and that Democrats had decided to withdraw it instead of holding a vote that would fail.
“This is a distance run, not a sprint,” Mr. Busch said. “We’ll come back next year and take a strong look at it.”
"The withdrawal capped a tumultuous few weeks, which began with the bill’s sponsors saying that its passage was all but assured and that Maryland would soon become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage.
...
"Two national groups that oppose same-sex marriage, the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council, both highlighted African-American and religious opponents of the bill as central to its defeat.
“Particular thanks must go to the African-American pastors, church members and delegates who spoke out against the attempted hijacking of the concept of ‘civil rights,’ ” the Family Research Council said in a statement.
"Democrats hold 98 of the House’s 141 seats, more than enough to overcome near-total Republican opposition, but ultimately about a third of all Democrats opposed it.
...
"The bill’s supporters would settle for no less than full marriage rights, as are legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia. A Democrat’s proposal to make the bill about civil unions instead of marriage failed.
“The law walks. It doesn’t run,” said Michael A. McDermott, a Republican who supported the civil union alternatiPost Optionsve. “You need to take it a step at a time.”
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Misc. kidney transplantation
In Texas, where everything is the biggest, the Texas Transplant Physician Group says they are the biggest "in Texas AND the United States."
"Our Living Paired Donor Kidney Transplant team made history in November, 2010, with the world's largest paired donor kidney transplant donor chain--with 16 transplants completed over three days. The 17th donor's "bridge" kidney was used to start another chain in December--extending the record-breaking chain to 23--still the largest single center kidney donor chain in the world! The kidney recipients ranged in age from 17 to 69 and all were transplanted with fully matched kidneys without the need for desensitization therapy. Dr. Adam Bingaman, Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Surgeon and Director of the Live Donor Kidney Transplant Program with Texas Transplant Physician Group is planning to extend the chain further in January, 2011.
"Read the local and national coverage this donor chain generated in our Kidney News section."
*********************
A story in the LA Times about a procedural error gives some insight into transplant procedures: Wrong patient got kidney at USC
"USC University Hospital halted kidney transplants last month after a kidney was accidentally transplanted into the wrong patient, according to a spokesman for the program that coordinates organ transplants in Los Angeles.
"The patient who received the wrong kidney escaped harm, apparently because the kidney happened to be an acceptable match, said Bryan Stewart, spokesman for the program, OneLegacy, which was notified of the error by the hospital.
"The hospital, which performs about two transplants a week, confirmed in a statement that it had voluntarily halted transplants Jan. 29 after a "process error" was discovered. The hospital did not detail the nature of the error and declined to answer questions. It said no patients were harmed.
...
"In general, immediately after a kidney is removed from a donor, it is placed in a plastic container with a screw-on lid. That container, labeled with an identification number, is then placed inside three sterile plastic bags, which are placed on ice in another container.
"The nurses in the operating room and the surgeon must check for the ID number on the kidney and compare that with the patient ID number," Klintmalm said.
"It is the operating room surgeon's responsibility to make sure the numbers match," he said. "You sign forms before you start the surgery."
****************
Flip Klijn writes: "Recently, several towns in the Netherlands started discussing the possibility to ask citizens directly whether they are willing to sign a donor form (i.e., to give permission for organ transplants at the time of decease) when they visit the city hall to pick up a driver's license or a passport. In Amsterdam, both left-wing and right-wing political parties seem to agree that this is a good idea: http://www.metronieuws.nl/regionaal/gemeente-amsterdam-ja-tegen-nieuw-plan-donoren/SrZkcu!QfBmXR4HMGY/
(There are already similar proposals in Rotterdam and The Hague. And probably for the US this is not something new.) In another city (Breda) they stopped asking "because citizens apparently did not like to be asked" (according to the city hall): http://www.bredavandaag.nl/nieuws/politiek/40539/2010-12-14/gemeente-breda-negeert-motie-d66
"Our Living Paired Donor Kidney Transplant team made history in November, 2010, with the world's largest paired donor kidney transplant donor chain--with 16 transplants completed over three days. The 17th donor's "bridge" kidney was used to start another chain in December--extending the record-breaking chain to 23--still the largest single center kidney donor chain in the world! The kidney recipients ranged in age from 17 to 69 and all were transplanted with fully matched kidneys without the need for desensitization therapy. Dr. Adam Bingaman, Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Surgeon and Director of the Live Donor Kidney Transplant Program with Texas Transplant Physician Group is planning to extend the chain further in January, 2011.
"Read the local and national coverage this donor chain generated in our Kidney News section."
*********************
A story in the LA Times about a procedural error gives some insight into transplant procedures: Wrong patient got kidney at USC
"USC University Hospital halted kidney transplants last month after a kidney was accidentally transplanted into the wrong patient, according to a spokesman for the program that coordinates organ transplants in Los Angeles.
"The patient who received the wrong kidney escaped harm, apparently because the kidney happened to be an acceptable match, said Bryan Stewart, spokesman for the program, OneLegacy, which was notified of the error by the hospital.
"The hospital, which performs about two transplants a week, confirmed in a statement that it had voluntarily halted transplants Jan. 29 after a "process error" was discovered. The hospital did not detail the nature of the error and declined to answer questions. It said no patients were harmed.
...
"In general, immediately after a kidney is removed from a donor, it is placed in a plastic container with a screw-on lid. That container, labeled with an identification number, is then placed inside three sterile plastic bags, which are placed on ice in another container.
"The nurses in the operating room and the surgeon must check for the ID number on the kidney and compare that with the patient ID number," Klintmalm said.
"It is the operating room surgeon's responsibility to make sure the numbers match," he said. "You sign forms before you start the surgery."
****************
Flip Klijn writes: "Recently, several towns in the Netherlands started discussing the possibility to ask citizens directly whether they are willing to sign a donor form (i.e., to give permission for organ transplants at the time of decease) when they visit the city hall to pick up a driver's license or a passport. In Amsterdam, both left-wing and right-wing political parties seem to agree that this is a good idea: http://www.metronieuws.nl/regionaal/gemeente-amsterdam-ja-tegen-nieuw-plan-donoren/SrZkcu!QfBmXR4HMGY/
(There are already similar proposals in Rotterdam and The Hague. And probably for the US this is not something new.) In another city (Breda) they stopped asking "because citizens apparently did not like to be asked" (according to the city hall): http://www.bredavandaag.nl/nieuws/politiek/40539/2010-12-14/gemeente-breda-negeert-motie-d66
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Marijuana in Montana and shark-fin soup in California
Two NY Times stories about repugnant markets caught my eye:
Soup Without Fins? Some Californians Simmer
and
In Montana, an Economic Boon Faces Repeal Effort
On Montana marijuana:
"Questions about who really benefits from medical marijuana are now gripping Montana. In the Legislature, a resurgent Republican majority elected last fall is leading a drive to repeal the six-year-old voter-approved statute permitting the use of marijuana for medical purposes, which opponents argue is promoting recreational use and crime.
"If repeal forces succeed — the House last month voted strongly for repeal, and the Senate is now considering it — Montana would be the first to recant among the 15 states and the District of Columbia that have such laws.
...
"Bozeman’s mayor, Jeff Krauss, a Republican, said he thought there was an element of economic fairness to be considered in the debate about medical marijuana’s future. “I don’t think anybody passed it thinking we were creating an industry,” he said, referring to the 2004 voter referendum. But like it or not, he said, it has become one, and legal investments in the millions of dollars have been made."
...
"One owner of a gardening supply company in the Bozeman area estimated that a person could essentially buy a job for $15,000, beginning a small growing operation with 100 plants. Especially for construction trade workers who were used to being self-employed before the recession, the owner said, the rhythms of the new industry feel familiar.
“Forty to 50 percent of customers come from construction,” said the owner, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because her national suppliers threatened to stop doing business with her if their products were openly associated with marijuana. “Plumbers, electricians, the whole genre of working-class, blue-collar Montana.”
On shark-fin soup, there are environmental and animal-rights issues, as well as cultural ones:
"...in a move that has infuriated Mrs. Li and others in this community, a bill recently introduced in the California Legislature would ban the sale and possession of shark fins, including the serving of shark’s fin soup. Down the rickety alleyways and produce-laden byways of San Francisco’s Chinatown, some see the proposed law as a cultural assault — a sort of Chinese Exclusion Act in a bowl.
"Similar to a measure passed in Hawaii, the bill seeks to curtail shark finning, a brutal, bloody practice of the global trade in which the fins are typically hacked off a live shark, leaving it to die slowly as it sinks to the bottom of the sea.
"In Hawaii, restaurants have until June 30 to cook or dispose of their fin inventories, and penalties for possession will be severe, with fines of $5,000 to $15,000 for a first offense. Similar bills were introduced in Oregon and Washington State.
"Scientists cite a growing international demand for shark’s fin soup, especially popular with China’s expanding middle class. As the once-ceremonial dish becomes more accessible, up to 73 million sharks are being killed a year.
"The bill is attracting a motley group of supporters, including the state’s sport and commercial fishermen’s associations, aquariums, chefs, scientists and numerous environmental groups.
"But in a city where food and the environment are perhaps equal obsessions, the politics of soup has also highlighted a generational divide between eco-conscious children and their tradition-bound elders. "
Soup Without Fins? Some Californians Simmer
and
In Montana, an Economic Boon Faces Repeal Effort
On Montana marijuana:
"Questions about who really benefits from medical marijuana are now gripping Montana. In the Legislature, a resurgent Republican majority elected last fall is leading a drive to repeal the six-year-old voter-approved statute permitting the use of marijuana for medical purposes, which opponents argue is promoting recreational use and crime.
"If repeal forces succeed — the House last month voted strongly for repeal, and the Senate is now considering it — Montana would be the first to recant among the 15 states and the District of Columbia that have such laws.
...
"Bozeman’s mayor, Jeff Krauss, a Republican, said he thought there was an element of economic fairness to be considered in the debate about medical marijuana’s future. “I don’t think anybody passed it thinking we were creating an industry,” he said, referring to the 2004 voter referendum. But like it or not, he said, it has become one, and legal investments in the millions of dollars have been made."
...
"One owner of a gardening supply company in the Bozeman area estimated that a person could essentially buy a job for $15,000, beginning a small growing operation with 100 plants. Especially for construction trade workers who were used to being self-employed before the recession, the owner said, the rhythms of the new industry feel familiar.
“Forty to 50 percent of customers come from construction,” said the owner, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because her national suppliers threatened to stop doing business with her if their products were openly associated with marijuana. “Plumbers, electricians, the whole genre of working-class, blue-collar Montana.”
On shark-fin soup, there are environmental and animal-rights issues, as well as cultural ones:
"...in a move that has infuriated Mrs. Li and others in this community, a bill recently introduced in the California Legislature would ban the sale and possession of shark fins, including the serving of shark’s fin soup. Down the rickety alleyways and produce-laden byways of San Francisco’s Chinatown, some see the proposed law as a cultural assault — a sort of Chinese Exclusion Act in a bowl.
"Similar to a measure passed in Hawaii, the bill seeks to curtail shark finning, a brutal, bloody practice of the global trade in which the fins are typically hacked off a live shark, leaving it to die slowly as it sinks to the bottom of the sea.
"In Hawaii, restaurants have until June 30 to cook or dispose of their fin inventories, and penalties for possession will be severe, with fines of $5,000 to $15,000 for a first offense. Similar bills were introduced in Oregon and Washington State.
"Scientists cite a growing international demand for shark’s fin soup, especially popular with China’s expanding middle class. As the once-ceremonial dish becomes more accessible, up to 73 million sharks are being killed a year.
"The bill is attracting a motley group of supporters, including the state’s sport and commercial fishermen’s associations, aquariums, chefs, scientists and numerous environmental groups.
"But in a city where food and the environment are perhaps equal obsessions, the politics of soup has also highlighted a generational divide between eco-conscious children and their tradition-bound elders. "
Friday, March 25, 2011
AMMA 2011 The Second Conference on Auctions, Market Mechanisms and Their Applications
AMMA 2011: The Second Conference on Auctions, Market Mechanisms and Their Applications New York, NY August 22-23, 2011 Call for papers.
The conference seeks papers devoted to issues that arise in all stages of deploying a market mechanism to solve a problem. This includes, but is not limited to, theoretical and empirical examination of questions such as:
Sample areas include:
- Is a market the right mechanism for the problem? What are the externalities involved? What are the issues with central planning?
- How should novel markets be organized? What is the "right" micro-structure for a given problem?
- What is the best way to provide incentives? Is (real) money necessary?
- Will the use of markets lead to the creation of artificial economies and what can we say about these economies?
- What new problems arise because of the special nature of these markets (e.g., from everyone wanting to use a cluster around the time of a conference deadline)?
- What protocols need to be in place for agents to participate in such markets (including everything from practical matters like integrating bidding protocols into the system to theoretical questions like incentive compatibility)?
- Is there a need for new mechanisms for specific applications (e.g., auctions used in sponsored search were never used in other settings)? If so, what properties of applications warrant such mechanisms?
Sample areas include:
- Content delivery networks
- Resource allocation in networks and distributed computing
- Sponsored search auctions
- Prediction markets
- Allocation of landing slots in congested airports
- Road pricing
- Student-school matching
- Kidney exchanges
- Combinatorial auctions
Submission Deadline
April 15, 2011
April 15, 2011
Notification of acceptance/rejection
May 27, 2011
May 27, 2011
Final versions of archival papers due
June 15, 20
June 15, 20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
