Banning the bulb: institutional evolution and the phased ban of incandescent lighting in Germany

Much academic attention has been directed at analysing energy efficiency investments through the lens of ‘behavioural failure’. These studies have challenged the neoclassical framing of regulation which emphasises the efficiency benefits of price based policy, underpinned by the notion of rational individual self-mastery. The increasing use of a regulatory ban on electric lamps in many countries is one of the most recent and high profile flash points in this dialectic of ‘freedom-versus-the-state’ in the public policy discourse. This paper interrogates this debate through a study of electric lamp diffusion in Germany. It is argued that neoclassical theory and equilibrium analysis is inadequate as a tool for policy analysis as it takes the formation of market institutions, such as existing regulations, for granted. Further still, it may be prone to encourage idealistic debates around such grand narratives which may in practice simply serve those who benefit most from the status quo. Instead we argue for an evolutionary approach which we suggest offers a more pragmatic framing tool which focuses on the formation of market institutions in light of shifting social norms and political goals—in our case, progress towards energy efficiency and environmental goals

POTs: Protective Optimization Technologies

Algorithmic fairness aims to address the economic, moral, social, and political impact that digital systems have on populations through solutions that can be applied by service providers. Fairness frameworks do so, in part, by mapping these problems to a narrow definition and assuming the service providers can be trusted to deploy countermeasures. Not surprisingly, these decisions limit fairness frameworks' ability to capture a variety of harms caused by systems. We characterize fairness limitations using concepts from requirements engineering and from social sciences. We show that the focus on algorithms' inputs and outputs misses harms that arise from systems interacting with the world; that the focus on bias and discrimination omits broader harms on populations and their environments; and that relying on service providers excludes scenarios where they are not cooperative or intentionally adversarial. We propose Protective Optimization Technologies (POTs). POTs provide means for affected parties to address the negative impacts of systems in the environment, expanding avenues for political contestation. POTs intervene from outside the system, do not require service providers to cooperate, and can serve to correct, shift, or expose harms that systems impose on populations and their environments. We illustrate the potential and limitations of POTs in two case studies: countering road congestion caused by traffic-beating applications, and recalibrating credit scoring for loan applicants.Comment: Appears in Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* 2020). Bogdan Kulynych and Rebekah Overdorf contributed equally to this work. Version v1/v2 by Seda G\"urses, Rebekah Overdorf, and Ero Balsa was presented at HotPETS 2018 and at PiMLAI 201

The Methodology of Modern Macroeconomics and the Descriptive Approach to Discounting

Critics of modern macroeconomics often raise concerns about unwarranted welfare conclusions and data mining. This paper illustrates these concerns with a thought experiment, based on the debate in environmental economics about the appropriate discount rate in climate change analyses: I set up an economy where a social evaluator wants to determine the optimal time path of emission levels, and seeks advice for this from an old-style neo-classical macroeconomist and a new neo-classical (modern) macroeconomist; I then describe how both economists analyze the economy, their policy advice, and their mistakes. I then use the insights from this thought experiment to point out some pitfalls of the modern macroeconomic methodology

Discounting in Economic Evaluations

Appropriate discounting rules in economic evaluations have received considerable attention in the literature and in national guidelines for economic evaluations. Rightfully so, as discounting can be quite influential on the outcomes of economic evaluations. The most prominent controversies regarding discounting involve the basis for and height of the discount rate, whether costs and effects should be discounted at the same rate, and whether discount rates should decline or stay constant over time. Moreover, the choice for discount rules depends on the decision context one adopts as the most relevant. In this article, we review these issues and debates, and describe and discuss the current discounting recommendations of the countries publishing their national guidelines. We finish the article by proposing a research agenda

Savaş ekonomisi

Çevirisi yapılan eserin künyesi: Pigou, Arthur Cecil; "Economic of War", The Political· Economy or War, Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London, 1940 ve P.A Samuelson, R.L. Bishop, J.R. Coleman (editörler), Readings In Economics, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1955 (İkinci Baskı), s. 389-397.Herhangi bir ülkenin sahip olduğu gerçek kaynaklar, halkının zihni ve bedeni gücünü, topraklarını ve madeni varlıklarını, maddi sermaye yapılarını, fabrika, demiryolları, gemiler ve mal stoklarını ve maddi olmayan "organizasyon" sermayesini ve vatandaşlarının yabancılardan yasal olarak almaya hak olduğu ödemeleri ihtiva eder. Barış zamanının normal siyasi iktisadında bu muhtelif kaynaklar belirli bir ritmik düzenle her yıl milli hasılayı veya gerçek milli geliri husule getirmek üzere ayarlanmış, olarak düşünülür. iktisadi analiz ve sosyal reform tasarıları çalışması bu milli hasılanın büyüklüğü halk arasında alımı ve zaman içinde de kendi üzerinde temerküz etmektedir

Wealth and welfare,

Mode of access: Internet

Unemployment,

Bibliography: p. 253.Mode of access: Internet