Food and Nutrition Economics

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
George C. Davis ◽  
Elena L. Serrano
Keyword(s):  
Food System ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
General Structure ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Nutrition Interventions ◽  
Consumer Economics ◽  
Nutrition Policies ◽  
Food And Nutrition ◽  
The Us

At the heart of most food, nutrition, and health decisions and concerns is an economic issue. Consequently, understanding some basic economics is imperative to evaluate the likely effectiveness of food and nutrition policies or interventions, especially those designed to operate through economic channels. Section I of the book provides the fundamentals of nutrition. Section II provides the fundamentals of consumer economics, from both the neo-classical and behavioral economics perspectives. Section III gives an overview of the US food system and the fundamentals of food production economics. Section IV gives the fundamentals of market analysis, including horizontally and vertically related markets. Section V gives an overview of cost effectiveness and cost benefit analysis of nutrition interventions. The general structure for most chapters is to first motivate the importance of the topic, present the economic approach to analysing the topic, intersperse the text with some examples and questions applying the concepts, and conclude with what has been found in the empirical literature related to the topic. A hypothetical conversation between a nutritionist and an economist runs throughout the book to help give the book a conversational feel and motivate and summarize each chapter.

scholarly journals The New Control of Territory and Urban Planning: the Eminent Domain in the US

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Sonia Paone
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Public Utility ◽  
Transfer Property ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The City

The article analyses the transformations of the use of eminent domain in the United States in the context of urban redevelopment programs. In the past the private property has been expropriated for public use only. Recently it is possible to forcibly transfer property, from a private subject to private developers, on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis that demonstrates that the new use is more efficient than the previous one. This profound change has been possible thanks to a progressive modification of the concept of public use. Traditionally, public use coincided with the construction of infrastructures and public utility, such as highways and railroads. Over the time, it has come to include other aims: firstly, projects of urban renewal and economic development carried forth by private developers. Essentially, it has resulted in the use of expropriation to assemble lands which are then granted to subjects who intervene in the reconfiguration of the city for private purposes. Starting from some important examples of urban development, the main phases of this process are reconstructed, also taking into account the most important decisions of the US Supreme Court that contributed to the change of doctrine, invalidating the postulate of public use as justification for expropriation.

Precaution, Proportionality, and Cost/Benefit Analysis: False Analogies

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Rose–Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Proportionality Principle

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.

Cost-benefit analysis of AR-V7 testing in patients (Pts) with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) eligible for abiraterone (Abi) or enzalutamide (Enza).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 283-283
Author(s):  
Mark Christopher Markowski ◽  
Kevin D. Frick ◽  
James R. Eshleman ◽  
Jun Luo ◽  
Emmanuel S. Antonarakis
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
The Us ◽  
Effective Option ◽  
Current Price ◽  
Societal Challenge ◽  
The Cost

283 Background: The rising cost of oncology care in the US is an ongoing societal challenge, and identifying biomarkers that inform clinical decisions and reduce the use of ineffective therapies remains elusive. A splice variant of the androgen receptor, AR-V7, was found to confer resistance to Abi and Enza in men with mCRPC, but did not negatively affect responses to taxanes, suggesting that early use of chemotherapy may be a more effective option for AR-V7(+) pts. With the recent development of a CLIA-certified clinical assay for AR-V7 at Johns Hopkins, we hypothesized that AR-V7 testing in mCRPC pts may result in cost savings by avoiding futile treatment with Abi/Enza in men with AR-V7(+) disease. Methods: We calculated the cost savings of performing AR-V7 testing in mCRPC pts prior to starting Abi/Enza (and avoiding these drugs in AR-V7(+) men) versus treating all mCRPC pts with Abi/Enza (without use of the biomarker). We have set the cost of the AR-V7 assay at $1000. The cost of 3 months of Abi/Enza (the minimum time it would take to determine resistance, clinically) was approximated at $20,000. We estimated that 30,000 mCRPC pts per year are eligible for Abi/Enza in the US. Results: In our prior studies, about 30% of mCRPC pts previously treated with Abi/Enza had detectable AR-V7 in CTCs. Assuming an AR-V7 prevalence of 30%, about 9,000 AR-V7(+) mCRPC pts per year would receive ineffective treatment with Abi/Enza, at an estimated cost of $180 Million. The upfront cost of testing all mCRPC pts who are Abi/Enza-eligible for AR-V7 is $30 Million, resulting in a net cost savings of $150 Million. When performing a continuous cost-benefit analysis after assuming other prevalences of AR-V7 (ranging from 4% to 50%) and a range of costs for Abi/Enza ($2000 to $24,000 per 3 months), we determined that AR-V7 testing would result in a cost savings as long as the prevalence of AR-V7 is > 5% (if the cost of 3 months of Abi/Enza remains at $20,000). Conclusions: AR-V7 testing in mCRPC pts (at $1000/test) is cost-beneficial when considering the current price of Abi/Enza, and may reduce the ineffective use of Abi/Enza leading to a net cost savings to the healthcare system.

scholarly journals CREDIT INFORMATION SHARING AND PROFITABILITY OF BANKS IN KENYA

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
James Kimani
Keyword(s):  
Information Sharing ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Loan Repayment ◽  
Administrative Costs ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Credit History ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: Credit information sharing cost positively influenced the profitability of banks in Kenya. The general objective of the study was to evaluate credit information sharing and profitability of banks in Kenya. Methodology: The paper used a desk study review methodology where relevant empirical literature was reviewed to identify main themes and to extract knowledge gaps. Findings: The study stablished that borrower’s credit history information had a positive influence on the profitability in Kenya. The study the respondents agreed that their banks collect information on the number of previous applications that a loan applicant has made, the bank collects information on the number of loans applied and declined, the bank asks for reasons that the loan applied was declined for all applicants, the bank asks loan applicants to indicate the discipline observed when repaying previous loans advanced, the bank asks clients to indicate if they have delayed in remitting their periodic loan repayment in the past, the banks collect more information about the loan applicants credit history from the CRB. Recommendations: The study recommended that while sharing information, the banks should do a cost benefit analysis to ascertain if the sharing of such information is material or not. It should pay its attention to the administrative costs that come with sharing information. This is because the cost of information sharing as seen from the study results have a negative and significant influence on performance Purpose: Credit information sharing cost positively influenced the profitability of banks in Kenya. The general objective of the study was to evaluate credit information sharing and profitability of banks in Kenya. Methodology: The paper used a desk study review methodology where relevant empirical literature was reviewed to identify main themes and to extract knowledge gaps. Findings: The study stablished that borrower’s credit history information had a positive influence on the profitability in Kenya. The study the respondents agreed that their banks collect information on the number of previous applications that a loan applicant has made, the bank collects information on the number of loans applied and declined, the bank asks for reasons that the loan applied was declined for all applicants, the bank asks loan applicants to indicate the discipline observed when repaying previous loans advanced, the bank asks clients to indicate if they have delayed in remitting their periodic loan repayment in the past, the banks collect more information about the loan applicants credit history from the CRB. Recommendations: The study recommended that while sharing information, the banks should do a cost benefit analysis to ascertain if the sharing of such information is material or not. It should pay its attention to the administrative costs that come with sharing information. This is because the cost of information sharing as seen from the study results have a negative and significant influence on performance

scholarly journals Insights Into the Delivery of Personalized Nutrition: Evidence From Face-To-Face and Web-Based Dietary Interventions

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balquees Al-Awadhi ◽  
Rosalind Fallaize ◽  
Rodrigo Zenun Franco ◽  
Faustina Hwang ◽  
Julie A. Lovegrove
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Consumer Preference ◽  
Dietary Change ◽  
Dietary Advice ◽  
Personalized Nutrition ◽  
Dietary Interventions ◽  
Nutrition Interventions ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Face To Face

Prevention strategies for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a global priority as it has been estimated that NCDs will account for around 73% of worldwide mortality by the year 2020. The adoption of diets that are low in saturated fat, free sugars, and red and processed meats and higher in unsaturated fats, wholegrains, fruit, and vegetables have been shown to reduce the risk of NCDs. With increasing internet use, several nutrition interventions are now being conducted online as well as face-to-face, however it is unclear which delivery method is most effective. Although a consumer preference toward face-to-face dietary advice delivery has been identified previously, interest in delivering web-based dietary advice, and in particular personalized nutrition (PN), has been rising, as internet delivery may be less costly and more scalable. This review compares published face-to-face and web-based dietary interventions to give insight into which dietary method might be more effective for PN. In total, 19 peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials were identified for inclusion in the review. The majority of face-to-face nutrition interventions were successful at facilitating dietary change. Results from web-based nutrition interventions suggested that personalized web-based nutrition interventions may be successful at inducing short-term dietary change compared to standardized dietary interventions, however, minimal evidence of long-term impact has been found across both delivery methods. Results of a trial that compared face-to-face with web-based diet intervention found significantly greater dietary changes in the face-to-face group compared to web-based and control groups. Further controlled comparative studies and cost-benefit analysis are needed to assess whether web-based methods can be used in place of face-to-face interventions for achieving dietary change.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost–Benefit Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
George C. Davis ◽  
Elena L. Serrano
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Intervention Program ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Nutrition Intervention ◽  
Intervention Programs ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Food And Nutrition ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Improve Health

Chapter 16 gives an overview of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. Every year millions of dollars are spent on food and nutrition intervention programs that are designed to improve health. Given money can always be spent in many different ways leads to a natural question: How effective was the program, relative to how much it cost? There are two standard approaches to answering this question: a cost effectiveness analysis and a cost benefit analysis. The chapter covers the main questions that must be answered in doing either a cost effectiveness or cost benefit analysis. The main formulas in each approach are presented. The pros and cons of each approach are discussed. A hypothetical nutrition intervention program is carried throughout to provide context for the discussion.

scholarly journals Using pre- and post-survey instruments in interventions: determining the random response benchmark and its implications for measuring effectiveness

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 1043-1047 ◽  
Author(s):  
George C Davis ◽  
Ranju Baral ◽  
Thomas Strayer ◽  
Elena L Serrano
Keyword(s):  
Nutrition Education ◽  
Survey Instrument ◽  
Present Communication ◽  
Nutrition Interventions ◽  
Expected Number ◽  
Food And Nutrition ◽  
The Us ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Survey Instruments ◽  
Nutrition Education Program

AbstractObjectiveThe present communication demonstrates that even if individuals are answering a pre/post survey at random, the percentage of individuals showing improvement from the pre- to the post-survey can be surprisingly high. Some simple formulas and tables are presented that will allow analysts to quickly determine the expected percentage of individuals showing improvement if participants just answered the survey at random. This benchmark percentage, in turn, defines the appropriate null hypothesis for testing if the actual percentage observed is greater than the expected random answering percentage.DesignThe analysis is demonstrated by testing if actual improvement in a component of the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program is significantly different from random answering improvement.SettingUSA.SubjectsFrom 2011 to 2014, 364320 adults completed a standardized pre- and post-survey administered by the USDA.ResultsFor each year, the statement that the actual number of improvements is less than the expected number if the questions were just answered at random cannot be rejected. This does not mean that the pre-/post-test survey instrument is flawed, only that the data are being inappropriately evaluated.ConclusionsKnowing the percentage of individuals showing improvement on a pre/post survey instrument when questions are randomly answered is an important benchmark number to determine in order to draw valid inferences about nutrition interventions. The results presented here should help analysts in determining this benchmark number for some common survey structures and avoid drawing faulty inferences about the effectiveness of an intervention.

scholarly journals The origin of cost–benefit analysis: a comparative view of France and the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Jiang ◽  
Rainer Marggraf
Keyword(s):  
Early Development ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Background Cost–benefit analysis (CBA), as a common instrument in the decision making process on how to allocate financial resources, has been widely used in various research areas and in almost all of countries over the world. However, the origin and the historical development of CBA has long been subject to neglect. We attempt to fill this gap and clarify the origin and the early development of CBA. Methods A comparative analysis is used to investigate the origin and the early development of CBA in France and the USA. The comparison is focused on two questions: (1) which criteria should be applied to decide whether or not a project should be carried out, and (2) with which procedure these criteria can be used for real projects. Results The origin of CBA can be dated back to the work of Saint-Pierre in France in 1708. Dupuit introduces the concept of consumer’s surplus that founds the economic basis of CBA. These works are not taken seriously in France and do not draw attention from other countries. Hence, until the 1930s, the principle of CBA is newly proposed in the US and the Green Book marks the mature of CBA. Conclusions The early development of CBA in France and the US is independent from the aspects of historical background, personnel, approaches and standardization. This study could help researchers of various disciplines be sure about the history of CBA when they perform this analysis in their research areas.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Michael A. Livermore ◽  
Richard L. Revesz
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Ronald Reagan ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Trade Associations ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us

In a 1981 Executive Order, President Ronald Reagan placed cost-benefit analysis at the heart of the US regulatory system. In the following decades, many progressives opposed cost-benefit analysis, arguing that it was a tool to undermine protections for consumers, public health, and the environment. Notwithstanding this resistance within their own party, Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama embraced cost-benefit analysis and showed how the technique could be used while implementing a protection-oriented regulatory agenda. As Democratic constituencies became more comfortable with cost-benefit analysis, conservatives and industry trade associations became more skeptical. This trend ultimately culminated in the Trump administration’s rejection of expertise, analysis, and evidence and its open manipulation of cost-benefit analysis to obscure the true effects of an overzealous deregulatory agenda that is often at odds with the public interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document