The panel was asked to address the ten challenge areas and to answer the question, "What would be the best ways of advancing global welfare [...] supposing that an additional $50 billion of resources were at governments' disposal?" -- Quote taken from: http://tinyurl.com/dd2dr (PDF file)
Every four years, a small group of distinguished economists meet in Copenhagen to do a Cost/benefit analysis of global problems. The problems are then ranked according to the "bang for the buck" to be had by addressing them. The "costs" considered include monetary costs, but also intangible costs, such as the cost of not acting immediately. Urgent matters, such as preventing starvation or curtailing the spread of disease, were given higher priority (An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure). Political barriers were not considered, as these rankings are intended to educate and encourage governments to act, not to quantify the likelihood of implementation. Problems for which a consensus on costs could not be reached were not ranked.
The Copenhagen Consensus of 2004
There were 8 economists participating in the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus, as follows:
The 10 "challenge areas" were as follows:
- Civil conflicts
- Climate change
- Communicable diseases
- Financial stability
- Hunger and malnutrition
- Trade reform
- Water and sanitation
At the 2004 meeting, 17 global solutions were ranked. The first on the list below is considered the "least costly" to implement with needed urgency. The last is considered important but with lower priority if we are to be pragmatic. All dollar values below are in U.S. dollars.
- Control of HIV/AIDS The panel estimated that and outlay of $27,000,000,000 in 2004 could prevent 30,000,000 new infections between 2004 and 2010 and prevent societal collapse in several African nations.
- Providing Micro nutrients One of the nutrients the panel proposed $12,000,000,000 in spending on was iron, to prevent iron-deficiency anaemia. (Yes, I did mean to spell it that way.)
- Free Trade
- Control of malaria The panel recommended $13,000,000,000 in spending on malaria prevention and treatment, with an emphasis on providing chemically-treated bednets.
- Development of new agricultural techniques
- Small-scale water technology The panel recommended this and the next two solutions in light of the statistics that estimate half of the people in developing nations are, at any moment, suffering from one or more water bourne diseases (i.e. bacterial diarrhea, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis E, typhoid fever).
- Community-managed water supply and sanitation
- Increases in water productivity in food production
- Lowering the costs of starting a business
- Lowering barriers to migration for skilled workers
- Infant and child nutrition
- Increasing infant birth weights
- Improved basic health services
- Work visas for unskilled workers
- Optimal carbon tax
- The Kyoto Protocol
- Value-at-risk carbon tax
The panel did not come to a consensus for any rankings in the areas of civil conflicts, education, or financial stability. They noted that a raise in median income tends to lower the incidence of civil war. They also noted that the potential return for educational spending is high, but not guaranteed:
Experience suggests that it is easy to waste large sums on education initiatives. Given this variety of circumstances and constraints, the panel chose not to rank any proposals in this area. However, the experts did endorse the view that externally supervised examinations improve accountability of schools and should be promoted. -- ibid
The 2004 sponsors of the Copenhagen Consensus were:
The next Copenhagen Consensus will be held in 2008.
The full results of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus can be read at: