Measuring the social costs of suboptimal combinations of policy instruments: A general framework and an example

Since most agricultural programs employ two or more policy instruments simultaneously, it is notable thai little research has attempted to find optimal instrument combinations and no research exists which evaluates the social costs (unrealized benefits) of combining instruments suboptimally. In our paper we report a simple and feasible method to find optimal policy instrument combinations, and we provide the first general, formal approach to measuring the social costs of suboptimal policy instrument combinations. Our approach is illustrated in an analysis for live major U.S. crops (corn, feed grains, wheat, rice, cotton). The simple model we employ for the illustration suggests that except lor the feed grains program, the observed programs combined policy instruments quite suboptimally. We conclude that agricultural economics research now can and should begin placing increased emphasis on studying optimal policy instrument combinations.     

Is the Risk of Bankruptcy a Systematic Risk?

Several studies suggest that a firm distress risk factor could be behind the size and the book-to-market effects. A natural proxy for firm distress is bankruptcy risk. If bankruptcy risk is systematic, one would expect a positive association between bankruptcy risk and subsequent realized returns. However, results demonstrate that bankruptcy risk is not rewarded by higher returns. Thus, a distress factor is unlikely to account for the size and book-to-market effects. Surprisingly, firms with high bankruptcy risk earn lower than average returns since 1980. A risk-based explanation cannot fully explain the anomalous evidence.     

Cost-utility analysis of the rehabilitation of patients with musculoskeletal problems

The objective of this study is to discuss the rehabilitation of patients in primary health care with problems in the musculoskeletal system from a socioeconomic perspective. A trial with coordinated rehabilitation in primary health care is compared with traditional rehabilitation. This trial, performed in Sweden in 1994, was a two-year prospective and comparative study of consecutively included patients with long-term illnesses due musculoskeletal problems (810 observations). A cost-utility analysis shows that the new rehabilitation program in primary health care is a cost-minimization program for society. There is no significant difference in the quality of life between the trial and control groups. The total cost is lower for rehabilitation in primary health care than for traditional rehabilitation (6 percent). The indirect costs are higher than the direct health care costs (60 percent), and payments from social insurance increased by 8 percent. The health economic results support rehabilitation in primary health care but also points out that this type of rehabilitation can be further improved.