Virginia Postrel's latest article in the Atlantic is about kidney exchange: ...With Functioning Kidneys for All.
She writes well (check out her Dynamist blog). In addition, as someone who gave one of her kidneys to a friend, she writes with a personal as well as a professional interest and authority. Her article mostly talks about kidney exchange as it is developing in the U.S., but also discusses possible donor compensation, and the international black market.
The article is well worth reading, and contains interesting links (including to this paper, in the New England Journal of Medicine, about a ten-transplant kidney chain, of which I'm happy to be among the coauthors).
It's a great thing to have kidney exchange covered in the press, because that allows more potential kidney exchange candidates to hear about the possibility, and it allows potential donors to know just how big an impact they could have. On this latter point, Postrel's article points out that
"Since the current transplant system extols altruism, one way to end the [long deceased donor waiting] list would be to find more altruists. With, say, 50,000 new living donors, deceased donation could easily pick up the slack. Again, the numbers aren’t that big. The Southern Baptist Convention includes 42,000 member churches; the United Methodist Church, whose Web site earlier this year featured the quote, “As United Methodists, we’re life savers,” counts more than 34,000 U.S. congregations. If each congregation produced just one new living donor, the waiting list would disappear. "
But press coverage is a bit puzzling. Not all of it is as careful and accurate and well reported as the Postrel article. (Which is not to say that even inaccurate coverage still isn't a good thing, for the way it spreads the news.) But I've been a little bemused at the way coverage sometimes simply follows press releases. Here's a story for those of you who find media an interesting subject.
Remember that NEJM article I mentioned above? It got a lot of press when it came out in March, maybe because the NEJM embargoes its articles until a day before publication, and that creates some buzz. That journal article reported a novel, non-simultaneous chain of transplants which begain in July 2007, in which 10 donors gave kidneys to 10 recipients, involving 6 transplant centers in 5 states. The innovative surgeon who was responsible for organizing that, Mike Rees, was the lead author of that article, and is the founder of the Alliance for Paired Donation. I thought the coverage was pretty accurate, perhaps because it was a news story that was about an article in a medical journal that the reporters could refer to.
But not all press releases are about peer-reviewed journal articles. This past week there have been a lot of stories about another remarkable accomplishment, another such chain, which accomplished 8 transplants, almost as many. It was organized out of Johns Hopkins, one of the leading hospitals doing kidney exchange in the U.S. It's not surprising that Hopkins surgeons should be among those pushing this kind of innovation forward; two of them who were involved in this new chain were among the coauthors of the NEJM article. And, while the accomplishment, so soon after the NEJM article, is noteworthy, the news coverage is in some ways as remarkable.
Here's the lead paragraph of the first of two stories about it in the Washington Post: "A Maryland transplant surgeon says he and doctors at four hospitals in four states have transplanted eight kidneys and he considers that the largest series of multi-kidney donations ever. "
The second Post story, the next day, repeats that claim (under the headline Successful Eight-Way Chain of Surgeries Involving Johns Hopkins Is a First:
"The first-of-its-kind surgery -- believed to be the largest chain of donations in history -- involved hospitals in four cities..."
The Post isn't alone. A few days later, after a chance to do some more in depth reporting and fact checking, the (July 11) CBS evening news reports on how one of the patients experienced "...a surprise rescue - the chance to be a part of the biggest multi-city, multi-patient domino kidney exchange ever."
There are three surprises for those interested in news reporting. First, the surgeon quoted above in the first Post story is one of the coauthors of the NEJM article about the earlier, larger chain, so that quote was an odd slip of the tongue (or, maybe he was misquoted, or maybe that's what's required to get kidney exchange the press coverage it deserves). Second, the AP and Post and CBS evening news reporters weren't aware of the earlier chain despite all the press coverage it received, including this (March 12) story (also) on the CBS Evening News about the earlier chain: A Transplant Surgeon Matches 10 Donors With Recipients In The Longest Chain In History .
But the third surprise is that there's a really great human interest story about this latest, Hopkins led chain. It's not just about the surgeons, it's also about the donors. One of the donors was a Hopkins hospital administrator, who had seen first hand the good that kidney donors can do, and wanted to help a friend, but turned out to be incompatible with that friend. That is just the kind of situation that kidney exchange was invented to help. (How do I know this? I read the Hopkins press release, which was headlined
Johns Hopkins leads first 16-patient, multicenter 'domino donor' kidney transplant.
The subheadline was "Johns Hopkins vice president 1 of the donors".
So, hats off to the Hopkins surgeons and their talented colleagues at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City and Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. And a deep bow to the donors. As for the reporters, yours is a noble craft too; kidney exchange is complicated, keep trying.
(And thank you, Virginia, for your thoughtful story in the Atlantic.)
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Dynasties in college legacy admissions
Along with other kinds of affirmative action, colleges are likely to give preferential status to applicants whose parents and other close relatives have attended. The idea seems to be that having a relationship with a family increases donations. (For example, imagine that one of your descendents will become a billionaire and look for a big philanthropic outlet. If everyone in the family has gone to Family U., maybe this urge will turn into a new campus building, whereas if everyone in your family went to a different college, maybe this philanthropy would go to the poor...)
This intuition receives some support in a recent paper, by authors at Stanford and Princeton, who study an anonymous but selective university.
Family Bonding with Universities by Jonathan Meer, Stanford University, and Harvey S. Rosen, Princeton University
From the abstract:
"One justification offered for legacy admissions policies at universities is that that they bind entire families to the university. Proponents maintain that these policies have a number of benefits, including increased donations from members of these families. We use a rich set of data from an anonymous selective research institution to investigate which types of family members have the most important effect upon donative behavior. We find that the effects of attendance by members of the younger generation (children, children-in-law, nieces and nephews) are greater than the effects of attendance by older generations (parents, parents-in-law, aunts and uncles). "
This intuition receives some support in a recent paper, by authors at Stanford and Princeton, who study an anonymous but selective university.
Family Bonding with Universities by Jonathan Meer, Stanford University, and Harvey S. Rosen, Princeton University
From the abstract:
"One justification offered for legacy admissions policies at universities is that that they bind entire families to the university. Proponents maintain that these policies have a number of benefits, including increased donations from members of these families. We use a rich set of data from an anonymous selective research institution to investigate which types of family members have the most important effect upon donative behavior. We find that the effects of attendance by members of the younger generation (children, children-in-law, nieces and nephews) are greater than the effects of attendance by older generations (parents, parents-in-law, aunts and uncles). "
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Indirect affirmative action in Texas college admissions
When the state of Texas ruled out race as an explicit criterion in college admissions, it adopted a rule that any Texas students in the top 10% of their high school class would be given automatic admission to the state university of their choice. Because Texas high schools are collectively diverse, that guaranteed a diverse freshman class. But it proved to be a very rigid way of matching students to schools, and the policy is about to end: Texas Vote Curbs a College Admission Guarantee Meant to Bolster Diversity.
"The University of Texas, Austin, a top-ranked institution, had sought changes to the program for years because it allowed admissions officials almost no latitude in putting together a class and endangered some important but less popular departments, like music. Last fall, 81 percent of the members of the incoming class were admitted under the 10 percent rule.
Suburban parents with students at schools with rigorous standards also complained that the law discriminated against their children, since it was harder to make the cut at such schools than at smaller, rural and some urban schools. "
...
"The law given final approval by the Senate on Saturday caps the number of students let in under the rule at three-quarters of the class, giving university officials discretion over the makeup of the last quarter. Sponsors of the bill had wanted a lower cap — 50 percent — but their colleagues in the House would go no lower.
Supporters said it was not a moment too soon. The state has only three top-rated universities — the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University and Rice University — and it had been projected that the entire incoming class at the Austin campus would be made up of top-10-percent students by 2013."
...
"Bill Powers, the president of the University of Texas, Austin, said that, left untouched, the previous law would have forced the university, in the long run, to accept more students than it had the capacity to teach. What is more, the automatically admitted students tended to opt for popular majors, and it had become a struggle to find talented students for programs like architecture, engineering, music, art and geosciences, he said.
While still restrictive, Mr. Powers said, the new law would give admissions officers more flexibility to reach down into high school classes for students who may be brilliant in some regards, like in music, but not in the top 10 percent.
“Judging people on one criterion is not the way to do admissions policy,” he said. “No one else in the country does it.” "
"The University of Texas, Austin, a top-ranked institution, had sought changes to the program for years because it allowed admissions officials almost no latitude in putting together a class and endangered some important but less popular departments, like music. Last fall, 81 percent of the members of the incoming class were admitted under the 10 percent rule.
Suburban parents with students at schools with rigorous standards also complained that the law discriminated against their children, since it was harder to make the cut at such schools than at smaller, rural and some urban schools. "
...
"The law given final approval by the Senate on Saturday caps the number of students let in under the rule at three-quarters of the class, giving university officials discretion over the makeup of the last quarter. Sponsors of the bill had wanted a lower cap — 50 percent — but their colleagues in the House would go no lower.
Supporters said it was not a moment too soon. The state has only three top-rated universities — the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M University and Rice University — and it had been projected that the entire incoming class at the Austin campus would be made up of top-10-percent students by 2013."
...
"Bill Powers, the president of the University of Texas, Austin, said that, left untouched, the previous law would have forced the university, in the long run, to accept more students than it had the capacity to teach. What is more, the automatically admitted students tended to opt for popular majors, and it had become a struggle to find talented students for programs like architecture, engineering, music, art and geosciences, he said.
While still restrictive, Mr. Powers said, the new law would give admissions officers more flexibility to reach down into high school classes for students who may be brilliant in some regards, like in music, but not in the top 10 percent.
“Judging people on one criterion is not the way to do admissions policy,” he said. “No one else in the country does it.” "
Friday, July 10, 2009
Market for doctors: work rules for surgical residents
Surgical residents are young doctors in training, and there is an ongoing conflict playing out between perceptions of their training needs and patient well being and safety. The Boston Globe reports: MGH cited on surgeons' overload, Trainees' hours exceed safety rule; Hospital says it has fixed problem.
"Junior surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital have been working too many hours, in violation of patient safety rules, according to a national accrediting organization that is threatening to put the hospital’s surgery training program on probation.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education cited the hospital because a significant number of its surgeons in training, known as residents, were exceeding hour limits and working seven days straight. The organization believes these workloads contribute to fatigue-related mistakes, and has given the hospital until Aug. 15 to fix the problem."
...
" But five years after the hour restrictions were adopted, Warshaw and other surgeons said frustration is building at the nation’s teaching hospitals, because residents believe the rules interfere with their work and ultimately may harm, rather than help, patients.
The council acknowledged the tension in its April 13 letter to Mass. General, in which reviewers wrote: “The greatest challenge . . . has been getting the culture of the residents to change.’’
..." Dr. Thomas Nasca, head of the accreditation council, lamented in a letter to training programs earlier this year that residents are placed in an “ethical quandary’’ because “we compel them to lie [about their hours] if they do the right thing for their patients.’’
Still, the council is stepping up enforcement, and 5 percent to 10 percent of surgery programs were cited last year, including many of the country’s most prestigious training programs. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center was threatened with probation last year, but has since reined in residents’ workloads."
...
"Surgeons are adamantly opposed to tougher limits, saying there is little evidence that sending residents home after a prescribed work shift has improved patient care and that the rules actually may be hurting residents’ education. General surgery residents need to complete at least 750 cases during their five-year training so they are ready to operate on their own once they finish.
Any change would also have financial implications for teaching hospitals, where the nation’s 107,000 residents provide the majority of care."
I haven't done any work related to residents' work rules, but I've done a lot of work related to how residents get hired....
"Junior surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital have been working too many hours, in violation of patient safety rules, according to a national accrediting organization that is threatening to put the hospital’s surgery training program on probation.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education cited the hospital because a significant number of its surgeons in training, known as residents, were exceeding hour limits and working seven days straight. The organization believes these workloads contribute to fatigue-related mistakes, and has given the hospital until Aug. 15 to fix the problem."
...
" But five years after the hour restrictions were adopted, Warshaw and other surgeons said frustration is building at the nation’s teaching hospitals, because residents believe the rules interfere with their work and ultimately may harm, rather than help, patients.
The council acknowledged the tension in its April 13 letter to Mass. General, in which reviewers wrote: “The greatest challenge . . . has been getting the culture of the residents to change.’’
..." Dr. Thomas Nasca, head of the accreditation council, lamented in a letter to training programs earlier this year that residents are placed in an “ethical quandary’’ because “we compel them to lie [about their hours] if they do the right thing for their patients.’’
Still, the council is stepping up enforcement, and 5 percent to 10 percent of surgery programs were cited last year, including many of the country’s most prestigious training programs. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center was threatened with probation last year, but has since reined in residents’ workloads."
...
"Surgeons are adamantly opposed to tougher limits, saying there is little evidence that sending residents home after a prescribed work shift has improved patient care and that the rules actually may be hurting residents’ education. General surgery residents need to complete at least 750 cases during their five-year training so they are ready to operate on their own once they finish.
Any change would also have financial implications for teaching hospitals, where the nation’s 107,000 residents provide the majority of care."
I haven't done any work related to residents' work rules, but I've done a lot of work related to how residents get hired....
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Contraception: reversal of the direction of repugnance?
What is viewed as a repugnant transaction can change over time, and even reverse direction entirely. An example is that laws in the US have gone from prohibiting contraception to prohibiting pharmacists from declining to provide contraception.
Repugnance to contraception is far older than effective contraception, with roots sometimes attributed to the Bible*. In the United States, the Comstock Law of 1873 made it a Federal crime to sell or distribute contraceptives or information about them, and many states followed with bans of their own. These were not finally overturned until the Supreme Court, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), overturned Connecticut's ban on contraception, and found that the Connecticut law violated a fundamental right of privacy. (Here's a summary of the case.)
More recently, a number of states have passed laws requiring hospitals and health care providers to inform rape victims of the availability of "morning after" contraception, and sometimes requiring pharmacies to stock it and dispense it: 50 State Summary of Emergency Contraception Laws.
This in turn has raised the question of whether health care providers and pharmacists who find contraception repugnant can or should be compelled to provide information about it. One of the final acts of the Bush administration was to issue regulations allowing pharmacists and doctors to decline to provide contraception or information about it if they found it morally repugnant:
Bush's Last-Minute 'Conscience' Rules Cause Furor
"Health care workers, hospitals and even entire insurance companies could decline to perform, refer or pay for abortion or any other health care practice that violates a "religious belief or moral conviction" under new rules issued by the outgoing Bush administration.
"This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience," said Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt.
But opponents of the rule, now set to take effect Jan. 19, say it could threaten patients' health. "This is a very wide, broadly written regulation that upsets what has been a carefully established balance between respecting the religious views of providers, while also making sure that we're guaranteeing patients access to health care," said Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "
(See the rule here, called (confusingly) Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law)
Subsequently, these conscience clauses have come under attack:
Obama administration may rescind 'conscience rule'
Repugnance to contraception is far older than effective contraception, with roots sometimes attributed to the Bible*. In the United States, the Comstock Law of 1873 made it a Federal crime to sell or distribute contraceptives or information about them, and many states followed with bans of their own. These were not finally overturned until the Supreme Court, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), overturned Connecticut's ban on contraception, and found that the Connecticut law violated a fundamental right of privacy. (Here's a summary of the case.)
More recently, a number of states have passed laws requiring hospitals and health care providers to inform rape victims of the availability of "morning after" contraception, and sometimes requiring pharmacies to stock it and dispense it: 50 State Summary of Emergency Contraception Laws.
This in turn has raised the question of whether health care providers and pharmacists who find contraception repugnant can or should be compelled to provide information about it. One of the final acts of the Bush administration was to issue regulations allowing pharmacists and doctors to decline to provide contraception or information about it if they found it morally repugnant:
Bush's Last-Minute 'Conscience' Rules Cause Furor
"Health care workers, hospitals and even entire insurance companies could decline to perform, refer or pay for abortion or any other health care practice that violates a "religious belief or moral conviction" under new rules issued by the outgoing Bush administration.
"This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience," said Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt.
But opponents of the rule, now set to take effect Jan. 19, say it could threaten patients' health. "This is a very wide, broadly written regulation that upsets what has been a carefully established balance between respecting the religious views of providers, while also making sure that we're guaranteeing patients access to health care," said Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "
(See the rule here, called (confusingly) Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law)
Subsequently, these conscience clauses have come under attack:
Obama administration may rescind 'conscience rule'
"February 27, 2009
WASHINGTON — Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration Friday will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.The rollback of the "conscience rule" comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it last year in one of its final policy initiatives.The new administration's action seems certain to stoke ideological battles between supporters and opponents of abortion rights over the responsibilities of doctors, nurses and other medical workers to their patients.Seven states, including California, Illinois and Connecticut, as well as two family planning groups, have filed suits challenging the Bush rule, arguing it sacrifices the health of patients to religious beliefs of medical providers."
(See the proposed rule here: Rescission of the Regulation Entitled ``Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law''; Proposal)
So it appears that we have come full circle in a certain sense, and now have laws that prohibit the withholding of information about contraception (and contraception itself), where once we had laws forbidding the dissemination of contraception and information about it.
(No wonder the study of repugnant transactions doesn't lend itself to simple theories about what is and is not repugnant...)
*The biblical story that is sometimes interpreted as indicating repugnance to contraception is the story of Onan in Genesis 38. However that story is complex, and it is far from clear to me that contraception is the issue.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Jury design
How to design a committee to determine when a probability is "beyond a reasonable doubt?" That's the task facing juries in criminal cases. (Juries are like prediction markets for the past: they are charged with determining probabilities ex post.)
In all but two States, the rule is that unanimous agreement is required. But the States aren't unanimous. A current challenge to a non-unanimous Oregon conviction raises the question: Guilty by a 10-2 Vote: Efficient or Unconstitutional?
"...Oregon is one of only two states that does not require juries to reach unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. Like Louisiana, it allows convictions by a vote of 10 to 2.
In a pair of decisions in 1972, the Supreme Court said that was all right, that the Constitution does not require states to insist on unanimity.
But the decisions, one each from Oregon and Louisiana, were badly fractured and internally inconsistent. They concededly ignored the historical record and made assumptions about jury behavior that have been called into question by more recent research."
...
"According to the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, most felony convictions in the state are the products of nonunanimous juries. Oddly, misdemeanor convictions still require a unanimous vote, though from a six-member jury. That means, the association said in a brief supporting Mr. Bowen, that prosecutors face a lighter burden in more serious cases.
Oregon does require a unanimous vote in first-degree murder cases, and Louisiana requires it in capital cases.
A unanimity rule would seem to reinforce the requirement that prosecutors prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. Two jurors out of 12, if you do the math, represent about 17 percent of the panel. That’s a fair amount of doubt."
In all but two States, the rule is that unanimous agreement is required. But the States aren't unanimous. A current challenge to a non-unanimous Oregon conviction raises the question: Guilty by a 10-2 Vote: Efficient or Unconstitutional?
"...Oregon is one of only two states that does not require juries to reach unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. Like Louisiana, it allows convictions by a vote of 10 to 2.
In a pair of decisions in 1972, the Supreme Court said that was all right, that the Constitution does not require states to insist on unanimity.
But the decisions, one each from Oregon and Louisiana, were badly fractured and internally inconsistent. They concededly ignored the historical record and made assumptions about jury behavior that have been called into question by more recent research."
...
"According to the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, most felony convictions in the state are the products of nonunanimous juries. Oddly, misdemeanor convictions still require a unanimous vote, though from a six-member jury. That means, the association said in a brief supporting Mr. Bowen, that prosecutors face a lighter burden in more serious cases.
Oregon does require a unanimous vote in first-degree murder cases, and Louisiana requires it in capital cases.
A unanimity rule would seem to reinforce the requirement that prosecutors prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. Two jurors out of 12, if you do the math, represent about 17 percent of the panel. That’s a fair amount of doubt."
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Market Design, Experimental Economics, and Game Theory
I've recently agreed to become a director of Market Design Group, Inc., primarily for the pleasure of being associated with the stellar group of auction designers and game theorists who are the other principals of the firm.
I've also become the president elect of the Economic Science Association, the professional association that was founded to promote experimental economics.
There was a time when relatively few people saw a connection between market design and experimental economics (or were interested in either). But the connection of market design and experimental economics to each other, both directly, and through the connection of each to game theory, is becoming clearer. It helps that market design has moved from the theoretical to the practical, with economists increasingly becoming involved in design projects that go through to the establishment of successful markets.
Here are half a dozen experiments I've collaborated on related to market design (with links to my collaborators):
Kagel, John H. and A.E. Roth, "The dynamics of reorganization in matching markets: A laboratory experiment motivated by a natural experiment," Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 2000, 201-235.
McKinney, C. Nicholas, Niederle, Muriel and Alvin E. Roth, "The collapse of a medical labor clearinghouse (and why such failures are rare)," American Economic Review, 95, 3, June, 2005, 878-889.
Niederle, Muriel, and Alvin E. Roth, "Market Culture: How Rules Governing Exploding Offers Affect Market Performance," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 1, 2, 2009, forthcoming.
Haruvy, Ernan, Alvin E. Roth, and M. Utku Unver,, “The Dynamics of Law Clerk Matching: An Experimental and Computational Investigation of Proposals for Reform of the Market,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30, 3 , March 2006, Pages 457-486.
Ariely, Dan, Axel Ockenfels, and Alvin E. Roth, "An Experimental Analysis of Ending Rules in Internet Auctions," Rand Journal of Economics, 36, 4, Winter 2005, 891-908.
Katok, Elena, and Alvin E. Roth, "Auctions of Homogeneous Goods with Increasing Returns: Experimental Comparison of Alternative 'Dutch' Auctions," Management Science, 50, 8, August 2004, 1044-1063.
I've also become the president elect of the Economic Science Association, the professional association that was founded to promote experimental economics.
There was a time when relatively few people saw a connection between market design and experimental economics (or were interested in either). But the connection of market design and experimental economics to each other, both directly, and through the connection of each to game theory, is becoming clearer. It helps that market design has moved from the theoretical to the practical, with economists increasingly becoming involved in design projects that go through to the establishment of successful markets.
Here are half a dozen experiments I've collaborated on related to market design (with links to my collaborators):
Kagel, John H. and A.E. Roth, "The dynamics of reorganization in matching markets: A laboratory experiment motivated by a natural experiment," Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 2000, 201-235.
McKinney, C. Nicholas, Niederle, Muriel and Alvin E. Roth, "The collapse of a medical labor clearinghouse (and why such failures are rare)," American Economic Review, 95, 3, June, 2005, 878-889.
Niederle, Muriel, and Alvin E. Roth, "Market Culture: How Rules Governing Exploding Offers Affect Market Performance," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 1, 2, 2009, forthcoming.
Haruvy, Ernan, Alvin E. Roth, and M. Utku Unver,, “The Dynamics of Law Clerk Matching: An Experimental and Computational Investigation of Proposals for Reform of the Market,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30, 3 , March 2006, Pages 457-486.
Ariely, Dan, Axel Ockenfels, and Alvin E. Roth, "An Experimental Analysis of Ending Rules in Internet Auctions," Rand Journal of Economics, 36, 4, Winter 2005, 891-908.
Katok, Elena, and Alvin E. Roth, "Auctions of Homogeneous Goods with Increasing Returns: Experimental Comparison of Alternative 'Dutch' Auctions," Management Science, 50, 8, August 2004, 1044-1063.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Rental market for textbooks
Here's a story about Chegg.com, which rents textbooks: We Rent Movies, So Why Not Textbooks?
"Yet the Craigslist model didn’t work. When classes ended in the spring, sellers couldn’t find many buyers online and sold their used books to the college store, often for pennies on the dollar. By the time students migrated back to campus in the fall, willing online sellers were few and far between. "
...
"With demand for good deals on textbooks running high, Chegg’s success comes in large part from being able to address those inefficiencies. While Chegg primarily rents books, it is also essentially acting as a kind of “market maker,” gathering books from sellers at the end of a semester and renting — or sometimes selling — them to other students at the start of a new one. "
See also http://www.bookrenter.com/, http://www.bookswim.com/, http://www.campusbookrentals.com/...
"Yet the Craigslist model didn’t work. When classes ended in the spring, sellers couldn’t find many buyers online and sold their used books to the college store, often for pennies on the dollar. By the time students migrated back to campus in the fall, willing online sellers were few and far between. "
...
"With demand for good deals on textbooks running high, Chegg’s success comes in large part from being able to address those inefficiencies. While Chegg primarily rents books, it is also essentially acting as a kind of “market maker,” gathering books from sellers at the end of a semester and renting — or sometimes selling — them to other students at the start of a new one. "
See also http://www.bookrenter.com/, http://www.bookswim.com/, http://www.campusbookrentals.com/...
Sunday, July 5, 2009
"It's like fishing..." Indoor prostitution in Taiwan and Rhode Island
Taiwan has begun a process of legalizing prostitution : "Taiwan's cabinet will issue regulations within six months, when new regulations take effect, covering locations in Taiwan approved for prostitution."
"It's like fishing," Su said. "The activity may be legal, but in some places you can't do it."
"Taiwan outlawed prostitution 11 years ago, but older sections of the capital Taipei still teem with underground sex workers in bars and night clubs on the upper floors of high-rise buildings."
"Taiwan is the latest place to legalise prostitution. New Zealand allowed brothels to operate freely in 2003, when parliament narrowly voted to overturn 100-year-old sex laws. A court in Bangladesh decriminalized the trade in 2000, but for women only."
And in Rhode Island, things may be moving in the opposite direction.
The Providence Journal has a story about how indoor prostitution was decriminalized in Rhode Island (perhaps inadvertently, the story suggests) as part of legislation aimed at strengthening laws against public solicitation: Behind closed doors: How R.I. decriminalized prostitution. (HT: MR). The story goes on to describe ongoing attempts to reverse that:
"This year, as they have for the last three years, several state lawmakers are pushing to rewrite the 1980 law. A bill that passed the House earlier this month clearly states that anyone who engages in sex for money is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. " (emphasis added)
Money is at the root of a lot of repugnance.
"It's like fishing," Su said. "The activity may be legal, but in some places you can't do it."
"Taiwan outlawed prostitution 11 years ago, but older sections of the capital Taipei still teem with underground sex workers in bars and night clubs on the upper floors of high-rise buildings."
"Taiwan is the latest place to legalise prostitution. New Zealand allowed brothels to operate freely in 2003, when parliament narrowly voted to overturn 100-year-old sex laws. A court in Bangladesh decriminalized the trade in 2000, but for women only."
And in Rhode Island, things may be moving in the opposite direction.
The Providence Journal has a story about how indoor prostitution was decriminalized in Rhode Island (perhaps inadvertently, the story suggests) as part of legislation aimed at strengthening laws against public solicitation: Behind closed doors: How R.I. decriminalized prostitution. (HT: MR). The story goes on to describe ongoing attempts to reverse that:
"This year, as they have for the last three years, several state lawmakers are pushing to rewrite the 1980 law. A bill that passed the House earlier this month clearly states that anyone who engages in sex for money is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. " (emphasis added)
Money is at the root of a lot of repugnance.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Getting what you measure: college rankings version
As the rankings of universities conducted by the magazine US News and World Reports have become more influential, there are a growing number of reports of the ways, fair and not so fair, that universities respond to what USNWR tries to measure.
Clemson University has been in the news in connection with their stated efforts to rise higher in the US News and World Report rankings of colleges.
They and their critics agree that they want to do this; the question is are they doing it in the right way for the right reasons.
Here's a critic who says no:Researcher Offers Unusually Candid Description of University's Effort to Rise in Rankings:
"Clemson University is run in an almost single-minded direction, with nearly all policies driven by how they will help the land-grant institution rise in U.S. News & World Report’s rankings, according to a university official whose candid comments stirred debate among conference-goers here on Tuesday."
and the reply:
Clemson Assails Allegations That It Manipulates 'U.S. News' Rankings
"Clemson University, stung by charges by one of its own researchers that it willfully manipulates the U.S. News & World Report rankings, fired back on Wednesday, saying the accusations are “outrageous” examples of “urban legends” that have surrounded the university’s campaign to reach the top 20 of public research universities.“The accusation that Clemson, its staff, and administrators have engaged in unethical conduct to achieve a higher ranking is untrue and unfairly disparages the sincere, unwavering, and effective efforts of faculty and staff to improve academic quality over the past 10 years,” reads a statement issued by the university’s chief spokeswoman, Catherine T. Sams. “While we have publicly stated our goal of a top-20 ranking, we have repeatedly stressed that we use the criteria as indicators of quality improvement and view a ranking as the byproduct, not the objective.” "
Here's a summary: Clemson Explains Its Approach to U.S. News Rankings
And here's a story about alleged simple mis-counting at USC's School of Engineering: More Rankings Rigging , and a summary reflecting the relation between what is measured and what is reported: Gaming the Rankings. Here's an illuminating paragraph:
"Any performance measure is ripe to be gamed. The percentage of alumni giving is a measure worth 5 percent of a ranking in U.S. News. A few years ago, Albion College made its own stir in the higher education rankings world when it increased its percentage of alumni making donations with the stroke of a pen. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the college recorded a $30 donation from a graduating senior as a $6 alumnus gift for the next five years. Clemson, in its systematic approach to raising its rank — “no indicator, no method, no process off limits to create improvement,” as Watt stated — solicited alumni donations in such a way as to increase their giving rate: Alumni were encouraged to give as little as $5 annually."
Note incidentally that there are different ways to try to rise in the rankings, and some may be strictly gaming (e.g. soliciting and/or reporting the same $30 contribution in a different way), while others (lowering the number of classes with more than 20 students) may have a positive effect by themselves. But whenever the goal is one thing, but what is or can be measured is another, there of course will be incentives to respond to what is being measured.
Clemson University has been in the news in connection with their stated efforts to rise higher in the US News and World Report rankings of colleges.
They and their critics agree that they want to do this; the question is are they doing it in the right way for the right reasons.
Here's a critic who says no:Researcher Offers Unusually Candid Description of University's Effort to Rise in Rankings:
"Clemson University is run in an almost single-minded direction, with nearly all policies driven by how they will help the land-grant institution rise in U.S. News & World Report’s rankings, according to a university official whose candid comments stirred debate among conference-goers here on Tuesday."
and the reply:
Clemson Assails Allegations That It Manipulates 'U.S. News' Rankings
"Clemson University, stung by charges by one of its own researchers that it willfully manipulates the U.S. News & World Report rankings, fired back on Wednesday, saying the accusations are “outrageous” examples of “urban legends” that have surrounded the university’s campaign to reach the top 20 of public research universities.“The accusation that Clemson, its staff, and administrators have engaged in unethical conduct to achieve a higher ranking is untrue and unfairly disparages the sincere, unwavering, and effective efforts of faculty and staff to improve academic quality over the past 10 years,” reads a statement issued by the university’s chief spokeswoman, Catherine T. Sams. “While we have publicly stated our goal of a top-20 ranking, we have repeatedly stressed that we use the criteria as indicators of quality improvement and view a ranking as the byproduct, not the objective.” "
Here's a summary: Clemson Explains Its Approach to U.S. News Rankings
And here's a story about alleged simple mis-counting at USC's School of Engineering: More Rankings Rigging , and a summary reflecting the relation between what is measured and what is reported: Gaming the Rankings. Here's an illuminating paragraph:
"Any performance measure is ripe to be gamed. The percentage of alumni giving is a measure worth 5 percent of a ranking in U.S. News. A few years ago, Albion College made its own stir in the higher education rankings world when it increased its percentage of alumni making donations with the stroke of a pen. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the college recorded a $30 donation from a graduating senior as a $6 alumnus gift for the next five years. Clemson, in its systematic approach to raising its rank — “no indicator, no method, no process off limits to create improvement,” as Watt stated — solicited alumni donations in such a way as to increase their giving rate: Alumni were encouraged to give as little as $5 annually."
Note incidentally that there are different ways to try to rise in the rankings, and some may be strictly gaming (e.g. soliciting and/or reporting the same $30 contribution in a different way), while others (lowering the number of classes with more than 20 students) may have a positive effect by themselves. But whenever the goal is one thing, but what is or can be measured is another, there of course will be incentives to respond to what is being measured.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Medical tourism and medical data
An Op-Ed in the NY Times reports on the difficulty of evaluating how well foreign hospitals do compared to American hospitals: Overseas, Under the Knife . A big difficulty is that appropriate data aren't collected on medical outcomes:
"There is reason to think the quality of care at some foreign hospitals may be comparable to quality in the United States. More than 200 offshore hospitals have been accredited by the Joint Commission International, an arm of the organization that accredits American hospitals. Many employ English-speaking surgeons who trained at Western medical schools and teaching hospitals.
So should offshore surgery be welcomed as a modest way to make American health care more affordable? We can’t know until we can directly compare the outcomes with those of American surgery. To begin, we must adopt a uniform way for American hospitals and surgeons to report on the frequency of short-term surgical complications.
Medicare could do this by requiring that all participating hospitals and surgeons count pre-surgical risk factors and post-surgical complications during hospitalization and for 30 days afterward, when most short-term problems become evident. The system used for many years by Veterans Affairs hospitals to reduce surgical complications is the best option for this, since it is available to all American doctors through the American College of Surgeons. So far, however, only a small minority of surgeons participate in this or any other valid national system of reporting surgical outcomes.
Patients and their surgeons also need comparable measurements of long-term success. Medicare should lead by adopting Sweden’s method of monitoring hip joint replacement outcomes. It tracks, for example, a patient’s ability to walk without pain six years after surgery.
Finally, Medicare should invite accredited offshore hospitals and their affiliated doctors to participate in all of its comparative performance reporting systems. Beyond informing Americans contemplating treatment abroad, such comparisons would allow us to learn if our care is the world’s best — and to accelerate our improvement efforts if it is not. "
Agreeing on what data to collect, and collecting it, isn't easy. (And of course what data you collect can influence what outcomes you get in ways that aren't all desirable.) But the lack of outcome data is a weak link in American medicine, which makes it difficult to evaluate alternative practices and procedures. I see this in discussions about kidney exchange, and my guess is that this is a big problem in improving medicine and the medical marketplace generally.
"There is reason to think the quality of care at some foreign hospitals may be comparable to quality in the United States. More than 200 offshore hospitals have been accredited by the Joint Commission International, an arm of the organization that accredits American hospitals. Many employ English-speaking surgeons who trained at Western medical schools and teaching hospitals.
So should offshore surgery be welcomed as a modest way to make American health care more affordable? We can’t know until we can directly compare the outcomes with those of American surgery. To begin, we must adopt a uniform way for American hospitals and surgeons to report on the frequency of short-term surgical complications.
Medicare could do this by requiring that all participating hospitals and surgeons count pre-surgical risk factors and post-surgical complications during hospitalization and for 30 days afterward, when most short-term problems become evident. The system used for many years by Veterans Affairs hospitals to reduce surgical complications is the best option for this, since it is available to all American doctors through the American College of Surgeons. So far, however, only a small minority of surgeons participate in this or any other valid national system of reporting surgical outcomes.
Patients and their surgeons also need comparable measurements of long-term success. Medicare should lead by adopting Sweden’s method of monitoring hip joint replacement outcomes. It tracks, for example, a patient’s ability to walk without pain six years after surgery.
Finally, Medicare should invite accredited offshore hospitals and their affiliated doctors to participate in all of its comparative performance reporting systems. Beyond informing Americans contemplating treatment abroad, such comparisons would allow us to learn if our care is the world’s best — and to accelerate our improvement efforts if it is not. "
Agreeing on what data to collect, and collecting it, isn't easy. (And of course what data you collect can influence what outcomes you get in ways that aren't all desirable.) But the lack of outcome data is a weak link in American medicine, which makes it difficult to evaluate alternative practices and procedures. I see this in discussions about kidney exchange, and my guess is that this is a big problem in improving medicine and the medical marketplace generally.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Senate Judiciary Committee and College Football Playoffs
The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary had the following item on its home page yesterday:
"Did You Know? The Senate Judiciary Committee conducted 104 hearings and business meetings in the 110th Congress, more than any other Senate Committee"
There is only one meeting so far on next week's calendar:
Tuesday 7/7/2009
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
"The Bowl Championship Series: Is it Fair and In Compliance with Antitrust Law? "
Here's the AP story: Senate to Hold Hearing on College Football's BCS
"The Senate plans to hold a hearing next week looking into antitrust issues surrounding the Bowl Championship Series. It's the second time this year that Congress is shining a light on the polarizing system college football uses to crown its national champion."
...
"Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the subcommittee's top Republican and the lawmaker who sought the hearing, did not return telephone and e-mail messages left at his office Tuesday.
In an essay for Sports Illustrated being released Wednesday, Hatch wrote that the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations or conspiracies designed to reduce competition.
''I don't think a more accurate description of what the BCS does exists,'' Hatch wrote. He noted that six conferences get automatic bids to participate in series, while others do not. The system, he argued, ''intentionally and explicitly favors certain participants.''
...
Football fans in Hatch's state were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season. Hatch noted that President Barack Obama and others have called for the BCS to be replaced with a playoff system."
...
"David Frohnmayer, president of the University of Oregon and chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, expressed a preference Tuesday for the current system, saying the proposals for a playoff system ''disrespect our academic calendars, and they utterly lack a business plan.'' "
College football bowls used to be an unravelled market, and, whatever its other flaws, the BCS system has largely eliminated that problem. While I'm rooting for the Judiciary Committee in their own competition to hold the most hearings, I hope that their efforts will not do too much harm to one of the main reasons we have colleges.
"Did You Know? The Senate Judiciary Committee conducted 104 hearings and business meetings in the 110th Congress, more than any other Senate Committee"
There is only one meeting so far on next week's calendar:
Tuesday 7/7/2009
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
"The Bowl Championship Series: Is it Fair and In Compliance with Antitrust Law? "
Here's the AP story: Senate to Hold Hearing on College Football's BCS
"The Senate plans to hold a hearing next week looking into antitrust issues surrounding the Bowl Championship Series. It's the second time this year that Congress is shining a light on the polarizing system college football uses to crown its national champion."
...
"Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the subcommittee's top Republican and the lawmaker who sought the hearing, did not return telephone and e-mail messages left at his office Tuesday.
In an essay for Sports Illustrated being released Wednesday, Hatch wrote that the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations or conspiracies designed to reduce competition.
''I don't think a more accurate description of what the BCS does exists,'' Hatch wrote. He noted that six conferences get automatic bids to participate in series, while others do not. The system, he argued, ''intentionally and explicitly favors certain participants.''
...
Football fans in Hatch's state were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season. Hatch noted that President Barack Obama and others have called for the BCS to be replaced with a playoff system."
...
"David Frohnmayer, president of the University of Oregon and chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, expressed a preference Tuesday for the current system, saying the proposals for a playoff system ''disrespect our academic calendars, and they utterly lack a business plan.'' "
College football bowls used to be an unravelled market, and, whatever its other flaws, the BCS system has largely eliminated that problem. While I'm rooting for the Judiciary Committee in their own competition to hold the most hearings, I hope that their efforts will not do too much harm to one of the main reasons we have colleges.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Chinese college admissions exams
Americans have the SATs, Chinese have the gao kao:
All-Nighter? For This Test, Some Chinese Cram All Year
"China may be changing at head-twirling speed, but the ritual of the gao kao (pronounced gow kow) remains as immutable as chopsticks. One Chinese saying compares the exam to a stampede of “a thousand soldiers and 10 horses across a single log bridge.”
The Chinese test is in some ways like the American SAT, except that it lasts more than twice as long. The nine-hour test is offered just once a year and is the sole determinant for admission to virtually all Chinese colleges and universities. About three in five students make the cut."
Many students who don't do well in one year study for an additional year and take the exam again:
Furthermore, different regions have different rules about how the exam is used in the application process. In some regions, students take the exam and learn their scores before deciding how to fill out a rank order list of applications (in which the first choice is a critical one). These students know how well they did on the exam compared to others in their region, so the only uncertainty is how many other students will apply to each top university, and hence where the exam cutoffs will be that will be needed to get in under quota.
In other regions, students make their applications after taking the exam, but before the results are announced, so they only have an estimate of how well they did compared to others. And in still other regions, students must decide on their applications before even taking the exam, so they only have information about how well they have performed on other measures compared to other students.
Thus, along with the ordinary difficulties of applying to university, different strategic decisions about how to deal with the application process face students in different regions.
All-Nighter? For This Test, Some Chinese Cram All Year
"China may be changing at head-twirling speed, but the ritual of the gao kao (pronounced gow kow) remains as immutable as chopsticks. One Chinese saying compares the exam to a stampede of “a thousand soldiers and 10 horses across a single log bridge.”
The Chinese test is in some ways like the American SAT, except that it lasts more than twice as long. The nine-hour test is offered just once a year and is the sole determinant for admission to virtually all Chinese colleges and universities. About three in five students make the cut."
Many students who don't do well in one year study for an additional year and take the exam again:
"Mr. Liu calculated that his score leaped by more than 100 points over last year’s dismal performance. But he was still downcast, uncertain whether he would make the cutoff to apply to top-tier universities. The cutoff mark can vary by an applicant’s place of residence and ethnicity."
That last point is actually a very interesting feature of college admissions in China. As I understand it, the exam for the elite universities is the same exam everywhere, but it is administered and evaluated differently in different regions. Thus Peking University (whose name in English survived the change in the English spelling of the city to Beijing) sets a different admissions threshhold for different regions. I believe it also has a different quota of students from different regions, so that students from a given region compete only with each other for admission to PU (or Beida, as it is known in Mandarin).Furthermore, different regions have different rules about how the exam is used in the application process. In some regions, students take the exam and learn their scores before deciding how to fill out a rank order list of applications (in which the first choice is a critical one). These students know how well they did on the exam compared to others in their region, so the only uncertainty is how many other students will apply to each top university, and hence where the exam cutoffs will be that will be needed to get in under quota.
In other regions, students make their applications after taking the exam, but before the results are announced, so they only have an estimate of how well they did compared to others. And in still other regions, students must decide on their applications before even taking the exam, so they only have information about how well they have performed on other measures compared to other students.
Thus, along with the ordinary difficulties of applying to university, different strategic decisions about how to deal with the application process face students in different regions.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Behavioral game theory on the MA Turnpike
A recent story in the Boston Globe sounds like a behavioral economics seminar on transaction costs: why are a third of the tolls on the Massachusetts Turnpike still paid (more slowly and expensively) in cash, rather than using the (now free) transponders?
Some still slow to make the move to Fast Lane: 1 in 3 tollpayers paying at booth
"The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has made strides in signing people up to use Fast Lane, with 66 percent of tolls now paid electronically, up from 62 percent in January. But the 34 percent who use cash, and pay higher tolls at booths inside Greater Boston to do so, remain a bit of a mystery."
...
"The survey LeBovidge conducted found that the biggest hurdle to signing up more people used to be cost, accounting for about 75 percent of the abstainers. About 7 percent worried about handing personal data to the Turnpike Authority or having their movements tracked. Some remaining drivers - not reflected in the survey - come from out of state and might not have an E-Z Pass account usable in Massachusetts. Other commuters do not have a checking account or credit card.
...
"If they wait in cash lanes enough times, most technophobes get converted. Fast Lane usage at the Allston-Brighton booths rises to 86 percent during morning rush hour into Boston. Massive traffic jams also do the trick: The Easter backup helped drive signups to 45,905 in May, compared with 10,875 during the same month last year."
One reason this is an interesting problem is that it's not just about individual choice, there's an element of behavioral game theory in this kind of slow learning. Cash payers produce congestion--negative reinforcement--for other cash payers. When lines at the toll booths get really long, even the EZ Pass users have to wait on line to get to the toll booths. So slower payers provide a negative externality to everyone on the busiest days.
In a forthcoming paper in the QJE, Amy Finkelstein raises the possibility that those cash payers may also provide a small positive externality by being more politically sensitive to changes in the tolls: EZ-Tax: Tax Salience and Tax Rates.
"Abstract: This paper examines whether the salience of a tax system affects equilibrium tax rates. I analyze how tolls change after toll facilities adopt electronic toll collection (ETC); drivers are substantially less aware of tolls paid electronically. I estimate that, in steady state, tolls are 20 to 40 percent higher than they would have been without ETC. Consistent with a salience-based explanation for this toll increase, I find that under ETC, driving becomes less elastic with respect to the toll and toll setting becomes less sensitive to the electoral calendar. Alternative explanations appear unlikely to be able to explain the findings."
So the next time you are stuck on the Mass Pike behind a long line of drivers waiting to pay their tolls, try to remember that there may be a small benefit to having the toll be so salient.
Some still slow to make the move to Fast Lane: 1 in 3 tollpayers paying at booth
"The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has made strides in signing people up to use Fast Lane, with 66 percent of tolls now paid electronically, up from 62 percent in January. But the 34 percent who use cash, and pay higher tolls at booths inside Greater Boston to do so, remain a bit of a mystery."
...
"The survey LeBovidge conducted found that the biggest hurdle to signing up more people used to be cost, accounting for about 75 percent of the abstainers. About 7 percent worried about handing personal data to the Turnpike Authority or having their movements tracked. Some remaining drivers - not reflected in the survey - come from out of state and might not have an E-Z Pass account usable in Massachusetts. Other commuters do not have a checking account or credit card.
...
"If they wait in cash lanes enough times, most technophobes get converted. Fast Lane usage at the Allston-Brighton booths rises to 86 percent during morning rush hour into Boston. Massive traffic jams also do the trick: The Easter backup helped drive signups to 45,905 in May, compared with 10,875 during the same month last year."
One reason this is an interesting problem is that it's not just about individual choice, there's an element of behavioral game theory in this kind of slow learning. Cash payers produce congestion--negative reinforcement--for other cash payers. When lines at the toll booths get really long, even the EZ Pass users have to wait on line to get to the toll booths. So slower payers provide a negative externality to everyone on the busiest days.
In a forthcoming paper in the QJE, Amy Finkelstein raises the possibility that those cash payers may also provide a small positive externality by being more politically sensitive to changes in the tolls: EZ-Tax: Tax Salience and Tax Rates.
"Abstract: This paper examines whether the salience of a tax system affects equilibrium tax rates. I analyze how tolls change after toll facilities adopt electronic toll collection (ETC); drivers are substantially less aware of tolls paid electronically. I estimate that, in steady state, tolls are 20 to 40 percent higher than they would have been without ETC. Consistent with a salience-based explanation for this toll increase, I find that under ETC, driving becomes less elastic with respect to the toll and toll setting becomes less sensitive to the electoral calendar. Alternative explanations appear unlikely to be able to explain the findings."
So the next time you are stuck on the Mass Pike behind a long line of drivers waiting to pay their tolls, try to remember that there may be a small benefit to having the toll be so salient.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Where the wait for a parking permit is 8 to 10 years
In Rye, NY, that's apparently how long it takes to get a parking permit at the commuter rail station.
The NY Times reports that the recession has resulted in fewer commuters and empty parking spaces, but has not shortened the wait for a parking permit, since commuters are reluctant to give up their right to park (and cannot sublet them to those still working): Slump Opens Spaces at the Station
"From Ronkonkoma on Long Island to Darien, Conn., riders are doing double takes at the vacancies in the station lot, and the empty spots, in turn, have sparked efforts to free them up for parkers without permits. In Connecticut, there is even a push to let permit holders “rent” their permits.
...
But these empty spaces may be chimerical. It’s “look but don’t touch” for people like Mr. Blake because many permit holders, even if they have lost their jobs and no longer commute regularly, still hold tightly onto their permits. Jeanette DeLeo, an assistant in the city clerk’s office in Rye, said there has been no whittling of the waiting list in her town, and the reason is not hard to fathom.
“With a waiting list of 8 to 10 years, people will not give up their permits,” Ms. DeLeo said."
The NY Times reports that the recession has resulted in fewer commuters and empty parking spaces, but has not shortened the wait for a parking permit, since commuters are reluctant to give up their right to park (and cannot sublet them to those still working): Slump Opens Spaces at the Station
"From Ronkonkoma on Long Island to Darien, Conn., riders are doing double takes at the vacancies in the station lot, and the empty spots, in turn, have sparked efforts to free them up for parkers without permits. In Connecticut, there is even a push to let permit holders “rent” their permits.
...
But these empty spaces may be chimerical. It’s “look but don’t touch” for people like Mr. Blake because many permit holders, even if they have lost their jobs and no longer commute regularly, still hold tightly onto their permits. Jeanette DeLeo, an assistant in the city clerk’s office in Rye, said there has been no whittling of the waiting list in her town, and the reason is not hard to fathom.
“With a waiting list of 8 to 10 years, people will not give up their permits,” Ms. DeLeo said."
Sunday, June 28, 2009
You can be too rich or too thin: Repugnance and fashion
Well, maybe you still can't be too rich (although let's wait until all the government bailouts settle down before we rush to judgment on that). But
Now even Vogue thinks you can be too thin.
"A brave editor has exposed fashion's dark secret - that it is the designers themselves who demand ultra-skinny models"
"Alexandra Shulman, the editor of British Vogue, has written to international fashion designers complaining that their sample garments - displayed on catwalks or sent to magazines for photo shoots - have in recent years gradually shrunk. Now they are so small, the only models who can fit into them are flat-chested, hipless, and so emaciated that Vogue is fearful of readers' horror if they put them on the cover. Even the superwaif Kate Moss struggles. Post-motherhood, post-30, she has newly acquired breasts.
Shulman's letter is brave: in taking on her own industry she risks scorn, snubs and precious advertising revenue. But she is also clever to cut to the heart of the long-raging size-0 debate. Before, the glossy magazines or model agencies were blamed or the models themselves made scapegoats. In 2006 the Spanish Government decreed that any girl with a body mass index of less than 18 should be banned from fashion shows. Many balked at the notion of gazelle-like teens being publicly weighed like livestock. Designers insisted that these were just naturally slender young women and that they sized their samples accordingly.
Shulman's letter exposes the dark truth, that the pressure to use überskinny models emanates from the designers themselves. In gradually shaving millimetres off sample sizes they force a model, who already has only a few ounces of body fat, to starve herself. To choose, perhaps, between Prada and her periods. (Italian and French designers are the most didactic body fascists.) And if a glossy magazine wishes to publish the latest collections by, for example, Dior these are the girls they must use. Indeed some newspapers - with less “edgy” values and older readers - now resort to retouching catwalk shots to make the models look bigger, less scary."
Understanding repugnance to some transactions is so tricky because it so often involves many things other than pure repugnance, such as the incentives that competition in certain professions may give members of those professions, and how such competition might therefore be regulated for the public good (e.g. no life-shortening steroids for athletes). The repugnance involving ultrathin young models may be akin to the repugnance that society feels to prostitution.
Now even Vogue thinks you can be too thin.
"A brave editor has exposed fashion's dark secret - that it is the designers themselves who demand ultra-skinny models"
"Alexandra Shulman, the editor of British Vogue, has written to international fashion designers complaining that their sample garments - displayed on catwalks or sent to magazines for photo shoots - have in recent years gradually shrunk. Now they are so small, the only models who can fit into them are flat-chested, hipless, and so emaciated that Vogue is fearful of readers' horror if they put them on the cover. Even the superwaif Kate Moss struggles. Post-motherhood, post-30, she has newly acquired breasts.
Shulman's letter is brave: in taking on her own industry she risks scorn, snubs and precious advertising revenue. But she is also clever to cut to the heart of the long-raging size-0 debate. Before, the glossy magazines or model agencies were blamed or the models themselves made scapegoats. In 2006 the Spanish Government decreed that any girl with a body mass index of less than 18 should be banned from fashion shows. Many balked at the notion of gazelle-like teens being publicly weighed like livestock. Designers insisted that these were just naturally slender young women and that they sized their samples accordingly.
Shulman's letter exposes the dark truth, that the pressure to use überskinny models emanates from the designers themselves. In gradually shaving millimetres off sample sizes they force a model, who already has only a few ounces of body fat, to starve herself. To choose, perhaps, between Prada and her periods. (Italian and French designers are the most didactic body fascists.) And if a glossy magazine wishes to publish the latest collections by, for example, Dior these are the girls they must use. Indeed some newspapers - with less “edgy” values and older readers - now resort to retouching catwalk shots to make the models look bigger, less scary."
Understanding repugnance to some transactions is so tricky because it so often involves many things other than pure repugnance, such as the incentives that competition in certain professions may give members of those professions, and how such competition might therefore be regulated for the public good (e.g. no life-shortening steroids for athletes). The repugnance involving ultrathin young models may be akin to the repugnance that society feels to prostitution.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Price gouging
Michael Giberson at Knowledge Problem offers an extended discussion of price gouging. Here is the most recent entry: Predictable consequences of anti-price gouging laws.
Here are some of the earlier posts in that discussion:
Price gouging policy as rendered in everyday politics
Price gouging and behavioral economics – more work needed
Price gouging: Is it wrong? Should it be against the law?
Price gouging seems to me to be a special class of repugnant transactions, repugnant not because money is involved, but because too much money is involved. (Special, but not unique. Recall the $10,000 upper limit in yesterday's post.)
Here are some of the earlier posts in that discussion:
Price gouging policy as rendered in everyday politics
Price gouging and behavioral economics – more work needed
Price gouging: Is it wrong? Should it be against the law?
Price gouging seems to me to be a special class of repugnant transactions, repugnant not because money is involved, but because too much money is involved. (Special, but not unique. Recall the $10,000 upper limit in yesterday's post.)
Friday, June 26, 2009
Money for eggs for stem cell research
While it has long been legal for women to sell eggs to help infertile couples have children, it is most often illegal for researchers to purchase eggs. This has now changed in NY, not without controversy.
Rob Stein has a great story in the Washington Post: New York to Pay Women to Give Eggs for Stem Cell Research. I'm going to quote at length from it below, because the controversy in many ways parallels that about whether or not there should be a market for kidneys.
Both controversies revolve around whether compensation for donors is a repugnant transaction, involving coercion, or exploitation, or the objectification* of people, or the encroachment of markets into areas that should be outside of market influence, or whether these are transactions that willing adults were until now unreasonably prevented from participating in. Quotes follow, emphasis added.
"New York has become the first state to allow taxpayer-funded researchers to pay women for giving their eggs for embryonic stem cell research, a move welcomed by many scientists but condemned by critics who fear it will lead to the exploitation of vulnerable women.
The Empire State Stem Cell Board, which decides how to spend $600 million in state funding for stem cell studies, will allow researchers to compensate women up to $10,000 for the time, discomfort and expenses associated with donating eggs for experiments. "
...
"The little-noted decision two weeks ago puts New York at odds with policies in every other state that provides funding for human embryonic stem cell research and with prevailing guidelines from scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences.
The move was welcomed, however, by proponents of stem cell research, stem cell scientists and some bioethicists, who said it would remove a major obstacle to pursuing some of the most exciting goals of the research -- including producing replacement tissues tailored to individual patients. " ...
"But the decision was questioned by others, including opponents and some proponents of stem cell research.
"In a field that's already the object of a great deal of controversy, the question is, are we at the point where we really need to go that route in order to do the science?" said Jonathan D. Moreno, a professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "I'm not convinced." "
...
""The lack of compensation has meant it's been nearly impossible to get enough eggs," said Douglas A. Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Boston. "
...
But proponents of reimbursing women have argued that fertility clinics routinely pay women thousands of dollars to donate eggs to help infertile women have children.
In making its decision on June 11, the New York board argued that there was no reason that stem cell researchers should be precluded from offering women equivalent sums, although they stressed that researchers should follow the same guidelines as fertility clinics: Anything over $5,000 must be justified, and anything over $10,000 would be excessive.
"We could not distinguish ethically between the payment for in vitro fertilization, which is very well precedented, and the compensation for donation for research," Hohn said.
Ronald M. Green, a Dartmouth College bioethicist, agreed.
"It is discriminatory against women to ban them from receiving payment," Green said. "We pay for participation in research that has risks associated with it for other procedures. So why not this? The idea that women cannot make that decision on their own strikes me as sexist.
But Moreno, at the University of Pennsylvania, questioned whether enough effort had been made to persuade women to donate eggs without compensation. "I wonder if all the expertise that could be brought to be bear on this problem of getting unreimbursed donation have been explored," he said. "
...
"Moreover, critics worry that the move could lead to the exploitation of women, especially poor women, who tend not to be in demand for infertility donation.
"With the economy the way it is, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that when a woman is looking at receiving up to $10,000 to sign up for research project, that's an undue inducement," said Thomas Berg, a Catholic priest who directs the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person and serves on the Empire State Stem Cell Board's ethics committee. He opposed the decision. "I think it manipulates women. I think it creates a trafficking in human body parts."
Others agreed, calling it an unnerving precedent.
"Whenever society starts to pay for relationships that are traditionally done with altruism and generosity within families, it raises the issue of whether there is anything that is not for sale," said Laurie Zoloth, a Northwestern University bioethicist. "
*On arguments involving objectification and such, see here, starting on p.45
Rob Stein has a great story in the Washington Post: New York to Pay Women to Give Eggs for Stem Cell Research. I'm going to quote at length from it below, because the controversy in many ways parallels that about whether or not there should be a market for kidneys.
Both controversies revolve around whether compensation for donors is a repugnant transaction, involving coercion, or exploitation, or the objectification* of people, or the encroachment of markets into areas that should be outside of market influence, or whether these are transactions that willing adults were until now unreasonably prevented from participating in. Quotes follow, emphasis added.
"New York has become the first state to allow taxpayer-funded researchers to pay women for giving their eggs for embryonic stem cell research, a move welcomed by many scientists but condemned by critics who fear it will lead to the exploitation of vulnerable women.
The Empire State Stem Cell Board, which decides how to spend $600 million in state funding for stem cell studies, will allow researchers to compensate women up to $10,000 for the time, discomfort and expenses associated with donating eggs for experiments. "
...
"The little-noted decision two weeks ago puts New York at odds with policies in every other state that provides funding for human embryonic stem cell research and with prevailing guidelines from scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences.
The move was welcomed, however, by proponents of stem cell research, stem cell scientists and some bioethicists, who said it would remove a major obstacle to pursuing some of the most exciting goals of the research -- including producing replacement tissues tailored to individual patients. " ...
"But the decision was questioned by others, including opponents and some proponents of stem cell research.
"In a field that's already the object of a great deal of controversy, the question is, are we at the point where we really need to go that route in order to do the science?" said Jonathan D. Moreno, a professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "I'm not convinced." "
...
""The lack of compensation has meant it's been nearly impossible to get enough eggs," said Douglas A. Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Boston. "
...
But proponents of reimbursing women have argued that fertility clinics routinely pay women thousands of dollars to donate eggs to help infertile women have children.
In making its decision on June 11, the New York board argued that there was no reason that stem cell researchers should be precluded from offering women equivalent sums, although they stressed that researchers should follow the same guidelines as fertility clinics: Anything over $5,000 must be justified, and anything over $10,000 would be excessive.
"We could not distinguish ethically between the payment for in vitro fertilization, which is very well precedented, and the compensation for donation for research," Hohn said.
Ronald M. Green, a Dartmouth College bioethicist, agreed.
"It is discriminatory against women to ban them from receiving payment," Green said. "We pay for participation in research that has risks associated with it for other procedures. So why not this? The idea that women cannot make that decision on their own strikes me as sexist.
But Moreno, at the University of Pennsylvania, questioned whether enough effort had been made to persuade women to donate eggs without compensation. "I wonder if all the expertise that could be brought to be bear on this problem of getting unreimbursed donation have been explored," he said. "
...
"Moreover, critics worry that the move could lead to the exploitation of women, especially poor women, who tend not to be in demand for infertility donation.
"With the economy the way it is, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that when a woman is looking at receiving up to $10,000 to sign up for research project, that's an undue inducement," said Thomas Berg, a Catholic priest who directs the Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person and serves on the Empire State Stem Cell Board's ethics committee. He opposed the decision. "I think it manipulates women. I think it creates a trafficking in human body parts."
Others agreed, calling it an unnerving precedent.
"Whenever society starts to pay for relationships that are traditionally done with altruism and generosity within families, it raises the issue of whether there is anything that is not for sale," said Laurie Zoloth, a Northwestern University bioethicist. "
*On arguments involving objectification and such, see here, starting on p.45
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Kidney exchange in Canada
From small beginnings, Kidney Exchange is spreading. The Globe and Mail reports 'Kidney swap' a medical first for Canadian doctors
HT: Duncan Gilchrist
HT: Duncan Gilchrist
Testing companies as (nonprofit) gate keepers
In the U.S., the gate keepers to many kinds of opportunities are testing companies. Tests are the "standardised" part of college admissions. While the value of tests like the SAT are somewhat controversial, they give college admissions offices numbers that are easier to compare than, say, high school grades from different high schools.
Slate follows the money, and the nonprofit status of the main testing companies: Taking the $ATs
"Last year, the SAT cost $45 for the basic test, which 1.5 million U.S. students took. The College Board does not comment on how much revenue each test brings in, but once you factor in the nearly 222,000 students who received fee waivers from the College Board, you can roughly estimate that SAT revenue was at least $58,360,365. I say at least because many students take the test over and over again, trying to refine their scores to get into better colleges. That's not to mention the litany of extra fees the College Board charges if you get your scores by phone ($12.50), rush the results ($36.50), or ask for a refund ($7). The real revenue is likely to be millions more than $58,360,365, and that's before you factor in the foreigners who want a piece of an American education ($26 international processing fee; $23 more if you're taking it in India or Pakistan).
That's only the beginning. Many colleges also demand that students take SAT Subject Tests, which are more focused than the broad-ranging SAT. The majority of students who take Subject Tests, which are at least $29 each, sit for three or more. In all, 752,854 Subject Tests were taken, leading to at least $21.8 million in revenue but certainly far more because of the flexible pricing structure.
The PSAT, which serves little purpose besides being a warm-up act for the SAT? $13 per test. In 2006, 2.7 million students took the PSAT for an estimated $35.3 million in revenue, less whatever costs the College Board waived for low-income students.
Then there are the AP exams, which assess whether students have college-level mastery of a subject, usually after taking a corresponding honors course in high school. Having an AP course on your transcript is highly attractive for your college application, just as scoring well on an AP test is highly beneficial once you get to college. So for the elite students in the country, the AP test is a necessary evil, one that costs them $86. In 2008, more than 2.7 million AP tests were taken worldwide. That's more than $232 million of revenue.
In 2006—the most recent year for which the College Board's tax returns are available—the College Board brought in a total of $582.9 million of revenue. Meanwhile, it spent only $527.8 million. That leaves it with a $55.1 million surplus.
In most cases we'd call that $55.1 million a pretty good profit margin. But here's the thing: It's not profit; it's "excess." The College Board is a nonprofit, so by law that $55.1 million has to be rolled over to the next year's budget. In exchange, the College Board gets a host of tax breaks and the cultural benefit of seeming like a cuddly, crunchy organization meant to promote educational ideals. But it's not; it's just as money-hungry and market-share-driven as any other organization. It needs to be to survive an increasingly crowded marketplace. But at what cost?
Some history for context: The College Board was started back in 1900 to help streamline the college-application process. A bunch of colleges had a confab and realized it would be easier if there were a general entrance exam that would qualify you for all the schools at once. Thus, the SAT. These days, the College Board is still a member organization, and it costs a paltry $325 a year to be in the ranks. Those dues grant you a small voice in an unwieldy representative democracy. There are more than 5,000 members, and the real decisions are made by the employees and trustees of the board."
...
"Of course, the College Board is not alone in its drive for revenue. Its main rival, ACT Inc., is a nonprofit out of Iowa City, Iowa, that administers the ACT test, the SAT's main competition. It had a $36 million surplus in 2007, which it says it reinvests in its programs and services, just as the College Board says it does. ACT charges 31 cents each time a college pulls a student's home address from its database, which allows the college to send a promotional brochure to a student's home. Those kind of micropayments add up. (Asked via e-mail whether the College Board had a similar fee, the College Board's spokeswoman offered no response. Test watchdogs suggest that it does, though the fee is unknown. The Big Money was not granted any interviews with the College Board or ACT officials for this story.) The Educational Testing Service, the organization that the College Board uses to actually design, score, and transport the SATs (and to a lesser degree the AP tests), had a $94 million surplus and paid its president $931,605 in 2007.
Is all of this kosher? Nonprofits in this country are generally broken down into two categories: private foundations and public charities. Private foundations are organizations that give money out. Clearly, the College Board and its brethren do not fall under that lot. Most everybody else is classified as a public charity. It's a clumsy label for a whole host of outfits that we don't think of as charities—hospitals, colleges, advocacy groups. Usually, we associate contributions to these nonprofits as being tax-deductible; it's an incentive to give money to charity that makes the nonprofit status so tempting to companies with a social mission. But checks written for the SAT and all the other standardized tests aren't tax-deductible because a service is being offered in exchange for the money. Hence, it's a transaction. A transaction that, according to the tax code, isn't nonprofit in its nature. Yet it counts toward all that revenue for the College Board, which filled out a nonprofit tax return, reaping all the benefits that go along with that. (Again, this all applies to ACT as well.)
To keep its nonprofit status, an organization must pass an IRS review every five years, which means it needs to execute its charitable mission appropriately. The College Board's charitable mission was summed up by its president in 2006: "to connect students to access and opportunity, to prepare more and more students to be ready to go to college and succeed." The quote's logic is circular. In order "to go to college and succeed," you have to get into college. And to do that, you have to prepare for and take the SAT. Certainly, the College Board can help you do that. But if the College Board didn't exist, there would be no need for it to happen in the first place."
Slate follows the money, and the nonprofit status of the main testing companies: Taking the $ATs
"Last year, the SAT cost $45 for the basic test, which 1.5 million U.S. students took. The College Board does not comment on how much revenue each test brings in, but once you factor in the nearly 222,000 students who received fee waivers from the College Board, you can roughly estimate that SAT revenue was at least $58,360,365. I say at least because many students take the test over and over again, trying to refine their scores to get into better colleges. That's not to mention the litany of extra fees the College Board charges if you get your scores by phone ($12.50), rush the results ($36.50), or ask for a refund ($7). The real revenue is likely to be millions more than $58,360,365, and that's before you factor in the foreigners who want a piece of an American education ($26 international processing fee; $23 more if you're taking it in India or Pakistan).
That's only the beginning. Many colleges also demand that students take SAT Subject Tests, which are more focused than the broad-ranging SAT. The majority of students who take Subject Tests, which are at least $29 each, sit for three or more. In all, 752,854 Subject Tests were taken, leading to at least $21.8 million in revenue but certainly far more because of the flexible pricing structure.
The PSAT, which serves little purpose besides being a warm-up act for the SAT? $13 per test. In 2006, 2.7 million students took the PSAT for an estimated $35.3 million in revenue, less whatever costs the College Board waived for low-income students.
Then there are the AP exams, which assess whether students have college-level mastery of a subject, usually after taking a corresponding honors course in high school. Having an AP course on your transcript is highly attractive for your college application, just as scoring well on an AP test is highly beneficial once you get to college. So for the elite students in the country, the AP test is a necessary evil, one that costs them $86. In 2008, more than 2.7 million AP tests were taken worldwide. That's more than $232 million of revenue.
In 2006—the most recent year for which the College Board's tax returns are available—the College Board brought in a total of $582.9 million of revenue. Meanwhile, it spent only $527.8 million. That leaves it with a $55.1 million surplus.
In most cases we'd call that $55.1 million a pretty good profit margin. But here's the thing: It's not profit; it's "excess." The College Board is a nonprofit, so by law that $55.1 million has to be rolled over to the next year's budget. In exchange, the College Board gets a host of tax breaks and the cultural benefit of seeming like a cuddly, crunchy organization meant to promote educational ideals. But it's not; it's just as money-hungry and market-share-driven as any other organization. It needs to be to survive an increasingly crowded marketplace. But at what cost?
Some history for context: The College Board was started back in 1900 to help streamline the college-application process. A bunch of colleges had a confab and realized it would be easier if there were a general entrance exam that would qualify you for all the schools at once. Thus, the SAT. These days, the College Board is still a member organization, and it costs a paltry $325 a year to be in the ranks. Those dues grant you a small voice in an unwieldy representative democracy. There are more than 5,000 members, and the real decisions are made by the employees and trustees of the board."
...
"Of course, the College Board is not alone in its drive for revenue. Its main rival, ACT Inc., is a nonprofit out of Iowa City, Iowa, that administers the ACT test, the SAT's main competition. It had a $36 million surplus in 2007, which it says it reinvests in its programs and services, just as the College Board says it does. ACT charges 31 cents each time a college pulls a student's home address from its database, which allows the college to send a promotional brochure to a student's home. Those kind of micropayments add up. (Asked via e-mail whether the College Board had a similar fee, the College Board's spokeswoman offered no response. Test watchdogs suggest that it does, though the fee is unknown. The Big Money was not granted any interviews with the College Board or ACT officials for this story.) The Educational Testing Service, the organization that the College Board uses to actually design, score, and transport the SATs (and to a lesser degree the AP tests), had a $94 million surplus and paid its president $931,605 in 2007.
Is all of this kosher? Nonprofits in this country are generally broken down into two categories: private foundations and public charities. Private foundations are organizations that give money out. Clearly, the College Board and its brethren do not fall under that lot. Most everybody else is classified as a public charity. It's a clumsy label for a whole host of outfits that we don't think of as charities—hospitals, colleges, advocacy groups. Usually, we associate contributions to these nonprofits as being tax-deductible; it's an incentive to give money to charity that makes the nonprofit status so tempting to companies with a social mission. But checks written for the SAT and all the other standardized tests aren't tax-deductible because a service is being offered in exchange for the money. Hence, it's a transaction. A transaction that, according to the tax code, isn't nonprofit in its nature. Yet it counts toward all that revenue for the College Board, which filled out a nonprofit tax return, reaping all the benefits that go along with that. (Again, this all applies to ACT as well.)
To keep its nonprofit status, an organization must pass an IRS review every five years, which means it needs to execute its charitable mission appropriately. The College Board's charitable mission was summed up by its president in 2006: "to connect students to access and opportunity, to prepare more and more students to be ready to go to college and succeed." The quote's logic is circular. In order "to go to college and succeed," you have to get into college. And to do that, you have to prepare for and take the SAT. Certainly, the College Board can help you do that. But if the College Board didn't exist, there would be no need for it to happen in the first place."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
