tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4684705185947971832..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Risk reduction policiesAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-10713838925033343492010-12-20T21:17:43.503-06:002010-12-20T21:17:43.503-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13714637134009580948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-71793787585912945012010-12-17T20:13:26.360-06:002010-12-17T20:13:26.360-06:00This is a neat potential application. It could we...This is a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859204575526471179963214.html" rel="nofollow">neat potential application</a>. It could well be that texting increases overall inconvenience in respect of appointment-lateness.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-52718159491393113872010-12-16T09:27:31.962-06:002010-12-16T09:27:31.962-06:00Some more addenda:
1. The root of the phenomenon ...Some more addenda:<br /><br />1. The root of the phenomenon is the difference in utility assignments between the policy-makers (or policy-evaluators) in their policy roles and the utility assignments of the individual agents in the target population. Because of the controversial nature of the "intrinsic" utility assignments to the risky activity, the policy makers rely solely on the uncontroversial risks (or so they claim when they present the policy as a risk reduction policy). Thus, they are not supposed to reason: "If we promote condoms, more teens will have sex, and sex is pleasant, so that's a good thing." But of course the target population does take the pleasure of sex into account. If the policy-makers shared the target population's utility assignments, then, assuming decision-theoretic rationality, total utility would indeed go up given the risk reduction policy. <br /><br />In the political arena, there are always suspicions that those who propose the policy are doing so out of sympathy to the target population's utility assignments and that those who oppose the policy are doing so out of disagreement with these utility assignments. But "officially" the debate is just about the risks, and I take that at face value.<br /><br />2. A better way to interpret my model would be for the population not to be a population of individual people, but of individuals' opportunities for the risky behavior. That would model the fact that individuals' utility assignments to the risky activity differ from opportunity to opportunity, and that the decision whether to engage in the risky behavior is typically not a once-and-for-all decision to develop a habit of such behavior, but a number of decisions to engage in particular instances of the behavior. <br /><br />This re-interpretation affects some of the results. When we look at the percentage of the population that engages in the risky behavior, we should look at the percentage of behavior opportunities that are realized. <br /><br />My intuition is that in the teen-sex case, the percentage of behavior opportunities that are realized will be smaller than the percentage of teens that are sexually active, because few if any of the sexually active teens are accepting every sexual "opportunity" that comes their way (though this is offset by the fact that some of the inactive teens are inactive because they don't have any opportunities). And the smaller the percentage of realized opportunities, the more likely it is for the risk-reduction policy to be counterproductive.<br /><br />There is, of course, a lot of vagueness with regard to the notion of an opportunity for the behavior.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-51349348649187259612010-12-15T17:25:13.513-06:002010-12-15T17:25:13.513-06:00This post reminds me of one of the famous lines in...This post reminds me of one of the famous lines in the movie, Jurassic Park. "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions."<br /><br />Often times social and fiscal policies have the best intentions in mind, but good-intentioned policies can certainly have negative consequences. <br /><br />I'm sure there's a word for this particular phenomenon. If not we can create one. :)Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-4358631748389636962010-12-15T13:36:07.340-06:002010-12-15T13:36:07.340-06:00A factor that exacerbates the problem is that peop...A factor that exacerbates the problem is that people in the target population may overestimate the risk reduction.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-5158030250624329752010-12-15T11:52:31.455-06:002010-12-15T11:52:31.455-06:00I am sure the phenomenon is known to economists. :...I am sure the phenomenon is known to economists. :-)<br /><br />But googling moral hazard suggests that that's not the same phenomenon. Moral hazard occurs when risks are shifted to another party--insurance is the main case. The kinds of risk-reduction policies I am interested in decrease risk without shifting it.<br /><br />Moral hazard is a more radical form of the phenomenon I am talking about, where the social cost of the individual risky behavior isn't decreased, but is passed on to others. (Imagine this weird pregnancy insurance case. If you get pregnancy, your baby is beamed by Scotty from your womb into that of a paid insurance company staffer.) In the cases I am interested, the social impact of the individual risky behavior is actually decreased.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-63214530325469307282010-12-15T11:38:39.770-06:002010-12-15T11:38:39.770-06:00This general phenomenon is well-known to economist...This general phenomenon is well-known to economists under the rubric of "moral hazard"--it turns out, for instance, that Volvo-drivers are among the most accident-prone. I've not seen it worked out in numbers before, though it would surprise me if some economist had not, and I haven't been looking. I think your conclusions are eminently reasonable--in particular, social policy should do the numbers.Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.com