The United States and International Courts: Getting the Cost-Benefit Analysis Right

2012 ◽  
pp. 419-444
Author(s):  
Cesare P. R. Romano
2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Rose–Ackerman

The Politics of Precaution by David Vogel, and the edited volume, The Reality of Precaution each compare the United States with Europe over a range of regulatory areas. Vogel claims that the US and Europe changed places in recent years with Europe becoming more precautionary than the US. The edited volume covers a wider range of topics and finds that the results are mixed. The evidence of diversity in the edited volume appears convincing, but this essay argues that both volumes too narrowly focus on the precautionary principle. Rather it argues for a broader context that confronts precaution both with the proportionality principle, which is a mainstay of European Union law, and with the limitations of cost/benefit analysis and Impact Assessment. It unpacks the normative underpinnings of these concepts to suggest a broader frame for policy analysis.


2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phi T. Ho ◽  
Brendan Carvalho ◽  
Eric C. Sun ◽  
Alex Macario ◽  
Edward T. Riley

Abstract What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background The Malignant Hyperthermia Association of the United States recommends that dantrolene be available for administration within 10 min. One approach to dantrolene availability is a malignant hyperthermia cart, stocked with dantrolene, other drugs, and supplies. However, this may not be of cost benefit for maternity units, where triggering agents are rarely used. Methods The authors performed a cost-benefit analysis of maintaining a malignant hyperthermia cart versus a malignant hyperthermia cart readily available within the hospital versus an initial dantrolene dose of 250 mg, on every maternity unit in the United States. A decision-tree model was used to estimate the expected number of lives saved, and this benefit was compared against the expected costs of the policy. Results We found that maintaining a malignant hyperthermia cart in every maternity unit in the United States would reduce morbidity and mortality costs by $3,304,641 per year nationally but would cost $5,927,040 annually. Sensitivity analyses showed that our results were largely driven by the extremely low incidence of general anesthesia. If cesarean delivery rates in the United States remained at 32% of all births, the general anesthetic rate would have to be greater than 11% to achieve cost benefit. The only cost-effective strategy is to keep a 250-mg dose of dantrolene on the unit for starting therapy. Conclusions It is not of cost benefit to maintain a fully stocked malignant hyperthermia cart with a full supply of dantrolene within 10 min of maternity units. We recommend that hospitals institute alternative strategies (e.g., maintain a small supply of dantrolene on the maternity unit for starting treatment).


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney Gent

In a context of neoliberalism, decisions made for a “public” good are often articulated as what makes the most financial sense, and citizenship is exercised as a matter of consumer choice. Neoliberal theory positions choice as an unmitigated good, and as universally available when markets are deregulated and goods and services are privatized. Examining rhetorics of choice, however, illuminates the often-invisible power relations that shape choice, and makes visible the ways in which choice is conditioned by inequality. This essay attends to the cost–benefit analysis used to promote the spread of Housing First, an approach to addressing chronic homelessness in the United States. It argues that a neoliberal discourse of choice reconfigures possibilities for rhetorical citizenship by constructing “good” and “bad” consumer citizen subjectivities, constraining agency for “expensive” people while concentrating responsibility for public decision-making among “taxpayers.” These discourses thus limit membership to neoliberal publics to people with access to private resources.


Author(s):  
Michael O. Adams ◽  
Gbolahan S. Osho ◽  
Crystal D. Hadnott

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Welfare reform has been the recurrent subject of heated debate in the United States, culminating in far-reaching legislation in 1996.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Taking the measure of that legislation requires attention both to the broader context of which welfare policy is a part and to the merits of the 1996 law itself.</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;" lang="EN"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Ultimately, the success or failure of welfare reform, which evoked a great deal of partisan rhetoric, will be assessed on empirical rather than partisan grounds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>It cannot be determined merely by changes in the size of welfare caseloads.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>It is crucial to any piece of legislation to analyze the cost in relations to its benefits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Most importantly, we must ask: What has happened to the families and children who have left the welfare system?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;" lang="EN">Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is a successful legislation that needs a little troubleshooting, so it will not be the failed anti-poverty prescription</span></span></p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document