The Economic Effects of Human Rights

There are three positions concerning the economic effects of human rights discussed among economists. Some economists argue that only property rights matter for economic growth and basic human rights can even make the legal system less efficient. Others argue that negative rights are generally welfare increasing while positive rights tend to reduce income and growth over time. Yet a third group of economists argues that elements of all groups of human rights are a precondition for making productive use of one's resources and are thus efficiency-enhancing. Based on a cross-country analysis, the effects of different groups of human rights on economic growth are estimated in this paper. The transmission channels through which the different rights affect growth are identified by estimating their effects on investment and overall productivity. Basic human rights have indeed a positive effect on investment, but do not seem to contribute to productivity. Social rights, in turn, are not conducive to investment in physical capital but do contribute to productivity improvements. None of the four groups of rights covered in this analysis ever has a significant negative effect on any of the economic variables included. Copyright 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd..

Regulation and Deregulation after 25 Years: Lessons Learned for Research in Industrial Organization

This paper is based on a keynote address given at the 2004 International Industrial Organization Conference in Chicago, April 2004. I draw selectively on the literature from the past 25 years on regulation/deregulation to provide important lessons about the attributes of good research in empirical industrial organization. Copyright Springer 2005deregulation, industrial organization, regulation,

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.

Randomised, controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown the survival benefit of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. However, the relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown. We aimed to determine whether one treatment was superior to the other. We did a frequentist network meta-analysis based on individual patient data of meta-analyses evaluating the role of chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC]) and of altered fractionation radiotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]). Randomised, controlled trials that enrolled patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, were included. We used a two-step random-effects approach, and the log-rank test, stratified by trial to compare treatments, with locoregional therapy as the reference. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. The global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency and P score to rank treatments (higher scores indicate more effective therapies). 115 randomised, controlled trials, which enrolled patients between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2012, yielded 154 comparisons (28 978 patients with 19 253 deaths and 20 579 progression events). Treatments were grouped into 16 modalities, for which 35 types of direct comparisons were available. Median follow-up based on all trials was 6·6 years (IQR 5·0-9·4). Hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (HFCRT) was ranked as the best treatment for overall survival (P score 97%; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·51-0·77] compared with locoregional therapy). The hazard ratio of HFCRT compared with locoregional therapy with concomitant chemoradiotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy (CLRT <sub>P</sub> ) was 0·82 (95% CI 0·66-1·01) for overall survival. The superiority of HFCRT was robust to sensitivity analyses. Three other modalities of treatment had a better P score, but not a significantly better HR, for overall survival than CLRT <sub>P</sub> (P score 78%): induction chemotherapy with taxane, cisplatin, and fluorouracil followed by locoregional therapy (IC <sub>TaxPF</sub> -LRT; 89%), accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (82%), and IC <sub>TaxPF</sub> followed by CLRT (80%). The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that further intensifying chemoradiotherapy, using HFCRT or IC <sub>TaxPF</sub> -CLRT, could improve outcomes over chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. French Institut National du Cancer, French Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Fondation ARC