scholarly journals Mandated Shutdowns, the Ratchet Effect, and The Barstool Fund

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Social Costs ◽  
Health Costs ◽  
Ratchet Effect ◽  
Government Subsidies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
To Come

Perhaps the most contentious part of the response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been the decision by governments to mandate—or effectively mandate—the shutdown of certain businesses. The justification for doing so is broadly consequentialist. The public health costs of not shutting down are so great that potential benefits from allowing businesses to open are dwarfed. Operating within this consequentialist framework, this paper identifies an underappreciated set of social costs that are a product of the present public policy that pairs mandated shutdowns with government subsidies. Such policy is prone to being an instance of what Robert Higgs calls the ratchet effect. Given that ratchets tend to be both costly and sticky, it is best to avoid allowing them to come into existence. This paper identifies a way of circumventing this particular ratchet; namely, by replacing governmental subsidies with support from private charitable funds like The Barstool Fund.

Social Costs of Alcohol

1998 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 763-780 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jody Sindelar
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Social Costs ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Economics Literature ◽  
The Social ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Cost Studies

This paper provides an overall framework for understanding and interpreting the literature on the social costs of alcohol. The paper discusses several philosophical and practical perspectives that motivate different types of cost studies. The two broad motivating perspectives are the public health and the economic viewpoint; each have several subtypes. The types of cost studies are discussed along with findings of key studies. The perspective, type of study, and important findings are evaluated, and challenges for future research are discussed. Although this paper draws on the economics literature, it is written for the non-economist.

scholarly journals The Public Health Costs of Job Loss

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Kuhn ◽  
Rafael Lalive ◽  
Josef Zweimueller
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Job Loss ◽  
Health Costs ◽  
The Public

scholarly journals Skills building seminar: Making the elevator pitch work: how to convince a policymaker in less than 2 minutes

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Scientific Committee ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Public ◽  
To Come ◽  
Health Narrative

Abstract Since a number of years, EUPHA, the European Public Health Conference and other associations, have been working hard to translate the evidence in a such a format that policymakers take notice. The work by WHO Europe on ‘telling the public health narrative’ or providing factsheets and infographics is an example. EUPHA has organised several skills building workshops on translation of evidence in the past years (e.g. 2018: You say tomatoe, I say tomato). The European Public Health Conference introduced the so-called pitch presentations (at Glasgow 2014), where researchers are asked to present their work in 5 minutes with maximum 5 slides (no animations), a way to learn to present key messages from research in just a few minutes. But what should you do, if you meet your policymaker in the hallway or in an elevator? Can you present your work, including key messages, without slides? And in less than 2 minutes? You should be able to. In this skills-building workshop, we will select a number of abstracts that have been accepted by the International Scientific Committee as posters and we will invite the presenting authors to this dare: present your work and key messages in less than 2 minutes. In order to see whether the policymaker is convinced, we are organising a small panel of policymakers and ask them to give their feedback. Are they interested? Do they remember the key message? And if all goes well, do you get an invitation to come back and present more of your work? Key messages Being able to present your key messages anywhere, anytime is needed. Panelist Anne-Marie Yazbeck Chafea, Luxembourg Contact: [email protected] Ivan Erzen Slovenia Contact: [email protected]

Imposing Unfair Risks

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inmaculada de Melo-Martín ◽  
Kristen Intemann
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Reliable Criterion ◽  
Good Science ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Well Being

This chapters evaluates whether inductive risks judgments can serve as a reliable criterion to identify normatively inappropriate dissent (NID). Dissent that calls for rejecting certain consensus views related to public policy can be risky. When consensus views are mistakenly rejected, it can have serious consequences for public health and well-being. These risks may not be worth taking when the risks disproportionately fall on the public, or when the dissent in question fails to conform to widely shared standards of good science. It concludes that this account also fails to offer a criterion to reliably identify NID. In part this is because of the difficulties presented by the criterion of shared standards in science. Also, the ambiguities present in judgments about inductive risks lead to serious problems in practice.

Can’t see the woods for the trees: exploring the range and connection of tobacco industry argumentation in the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 448-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessamina Lih Yan Lie ◽  
Gary Fooks ◽  
Nanne K de Vries ◽  
Suzanne M Heijndijk ◽  
Marc C Willemsen
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
Illicit Trade ◽  
The Public ◽  
Philip Morris ◽  
Better Regulation ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
Public Consultations

IntroductionTransnational tobacco company (TTC) submissions to the 2012 UK standardised packaging consultation are studied to examine TTC argumentation in the context of Better Regulation practices.MethodsA content analysis was conducted of Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco submissions to the 2012 UK consultation. Industry arguments concerning expected costs and (contested) benefits of the policy were categorised into themes and frames. The inter-relationship between frames through linked arguments was mapped to analyse central arguments using an argumentation network.Results173 arguments were identified. Arguments fell into one of five frames: ineffectiveness, negative economic consequences, harm to public health, increased crime or legal ramifications. Arguments highlighted high costs to a wide range of groups, including government, general public and other businesses. Arguments also questioned the public health benefits of standardised packaging and highlighted the potential benefits to undeserving groups. An increase in illicit trade was the most central argument and linked to the greatest variety of arguments.ConclusionsIn policy-making systems characterised by mandatory impact assessments and public consultations, the wide range of cost (and contested benefits) based arguments highlights the risk of TTCs overloading policy actors and causing delays in policy adoption. Illicit trade related arguments are central to providing a rationale for these arguments, which include the claim that standardised packaging will increase health risks. The strategic importance of illicit trade arguments to industry argumentation in public consultations underlines the risks of relying on industry data relating to the scale of the illicit trade.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document