The Kopenhagener consent 2004 (English: Copenhagen Consensus) is a Danish project, tried on the basis of economic cost benefit analyses priorities to set for the most important challenges of mankind, like hunger, AIDS, water supply, entrance to sanitary mechanisms, trade restrictions, corruption and climatic change. The project avails itself of the methods of the welfare economics.

The idea for this came from Lomborg and other members institutes for of the Environmental Assessment, a donation of the Danish government and by the magazine The Economist was along-financed.

All participants are economists, who put the stress on a priority list, which is based on a rational basis - the economic analysis. Despite billions, which hands from the UN, which governments of the rich states, donations, charity federations and non--government organizations are spent on global challenges, the money, which is used for problems such as malnutrition or the climatic change, not out. The World Bank estimates that the Millenniumsziele of the UN would cost additionally 40-70 billion US$ beside the annual 57 billion US$ already spent in the year.

The emphasis lies on the economic beginning, because it was on the one hand recognized that the means, which are spent on the global challenges are not sufficient, and on the other hand is assumed the medium attention and the public opinion concentrate on things, which are sometimes arbitrary and sentimental.

A book, which summarizes the results, global Crises, global Solutions, given change by Lomborg, published in October 2004 of Cambridge University press.

Expert

The process, how it was pursued, is based in strong measure on the expert's assessment of economists with large Reputation, so for instance four The participants were: marked)

• Jagdish Bhagwati
• Robert Fogel (*)
• Bruno Frey
• Justin Yifu Lin
• Douglas North (*)
• Thomas Schelling (*)
• Vernon L. Smith (*)
• Nancy Stokey

Areas

The experts began with ten challenges and different solution types for everyone.

• Climatic change (William R. Cline)
• Sticking on diseases (Anne Mills)
• Conflicts (Paul Collier)
• Education (Lant Pritchett)
• Financial instability (Barry Eichengreen)
• Government and corruption (Susan Rose-Ackerman)
• Malnutrition and hunger (Jere Behrman)
• Population and migration (Phillip L. Martin)
• Sanitary mechanism and water (franc Rijsberman)
• Subsidies and commercial barriers (Kym Anderson one)

After a cost benefit analysis one determined, how well these problems for the policy were to be solved; they were arranged thereby in four categories: Very well; Well, sufficient and unsatisfactory.

• Very well

Highest priority has the fight against HIV and AIDS in this opinion. The economists estimated that an investment from 27 billion US$ could to 2010 almost 30 million cases of infecting prevent. Measures for the fight against malnutrition and hunger were regarded as zweitsinnvollst. Means are here food auxiliary means, particularly against lack of iron by one-sided nutrition. This has an extraordinarily high cost The expenditures became estimated on 12 billion US$. The third point covers trade liberalisations. Differently than with aforementioned affairs no lives are in danger, but the experts agreed that here with small costs very large use could be drawn so probably for the world as a whole and for the developing countries. The fourth point concerns the malaria. 13 billion US$ would mean very large use for the costs, particularly if they were spent on the chemical mosquito fight.

• Well

As point the consent calls five stronger investments into new agrarian technologies particularly for developing countries. Three suggestions on the improvement of sanitary mechanisms and the water quality for a billion of the poorest ones follow in the list. (Set on the places 6 to 8: simple water technology for households, jointly organized water supply and waste water disposal and research for a larger profitability of the water in the food production). The last point in this category concerned the government guidance and was concerned with how the costs could be lowered for the establishment of new enterprises.

• Sufficiently

Number 10 was a migration project, a whose goal was loosening of immigration barriers for skilled workers. 11 and 12 was malnutrition projects - improvement of the baby and child nutrition and the reduction of the common low birth weight. Number 12 was the increase of the basic supply of medical goods or the fight against diseases.

• Unsatisfactorily

The points 14-17 covered migration projects (immigrant worker programs for non--skilled workers), which as obstacle for integration were regarded, and climatic change projects (carbon dioxide expensive and Kioto minutes), which the forum regarded as a little cost efficient for the expected use.

Criticism

The Kopenhagener consent was strongly criticized. Some critics, among them also economists such as Jeffrey Sachs, analyzed the serviceability of a cost use calculation also with high-complex and scientifically uncertain terrain, the use of certain rate of discount, in order to arrange current and future values, as well as the assumptions of the forum concerning the availability of aids.

Further it was criticized that the discussion participants were excluding professional economists. Also the connection of the project with Lomborg, the controversy positions in environmental questions takes, provocative skepticism. Also the other economists, by Lomborg selected, stood in the suspicion to be obligated to strongly the ideas of the free market and have thus little sympathy for a Staatsinterventionalismus in environmental questions. Therefore organized the consent parallel a forum of non--experts, which prepared its own list of recommendations (these essentially corresponded to those of the experts).

The actual suggestions provoked to be regarded however less contradiction, there its priorities number 1 and 2 (AIDS and malnutrition) generally than most importantly. However the suggestion on the trade liberalisations was criticized in point 3 (many globalization critics would reject it as particularly harmful) and the low placement of the recommendation regarding the climatic change.

See also

• Welfare economics

Literature

• Sachs, Jeffrey D.: Seeking A global solution, in: Nature, volume of 430, P. 725-726 (August 2004).
• Lomborg, Bjorn: Global Crises, global Solutions, Cambridge University press, 2004

Related links

• The side of the project
• The web page of The Economist to this project

Articles in category "Copenhagen Consensus"

We found here 28 articles.