Media manipulation

Suppose it came to light that the execs of one of the major networks had put the word down through the organization that all shows should be aiming to hit targets of "pro-corporate" messages in order to make their sponsors happier. Nothing pro any particular brand, mind you. Just general "Ain't capitalism great? Look at how rich we all are compared even to how things were a couple generations ago! Life is wonderful! Celebrate human achievement and the great folks who help to make it happen!"

I'd expect nonstop coverage on CNN of Naomi Klein's gang with the cameras waiting for spontaneous combustion. It wouldn't be met with kindly.

But how many of you had heard this one?

In just one week on NBC, the detectives on "Law and Order" investigated a cash-for-clunkers scam, a nurse on "Mercy" organized a group bike ride, Al Gore made a guest appearance on "30 Rock," and "The Office" turned Dwight Schrute into a cape-wearing superhero obsessed with recycling.

Coincidence? Hardly. NBC Universal planted these eco-friendly elements into scripted television shows to influence viewers and help sell ads.

The tactic—General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal calls it "behavior placement"—is designed to sway viewers to adopt actions they see modeled in their favorite shows. And it helps sell ads to marketers who want to associate their brands with a feel-good, socially aware show.

The last thing I'd ever want would be some government agency overseeing and banning this kind of thing. But it's interesting what kinds of media manipulation draws outrage and what kinds are, well, mostly ignored.

Missing markets

It's looking more likely that National will be pushing the drink drive blood alcohol limit down from 0.08 to 0.05. I'd noted the insufficiency of current data for making that call here; David Farrar calls for more research here. But I fear that National's preferred research method's already been conducted: a poll shows majority support for such a reduction.

I'd really love to see a set of conditional iPredict markets on this one.

Market 1: Contract pays $1 if the drink driving limit is lowered to 0.05 by 1 Jan 2011, $0 otherwise.

Market 2: A set of bundles on the 2011 road toll relative to the average number of road deaths from 2004-2009 CONDITIONAL on no changes to the drink drive limit. 401 was the average over the period, standard deviation 25. So have the first bundle 388-412, then a couple of bundles with 25-count intervals either side. Maybe cut it to half-SD interval width for a finer measure.

Market 3: As above, but CONDITIONAL on the limit dropping to 0.05.

I'd expect a slight reduction in the road toll with the limit dropping. Not enough to make it a worthwhile policy, but I'd still expect a small reduction. Price differences between markets 2 and 3, conditioned by prices in market 1, would give a market-based estimate on the effect of lowering the drink driving limit.

iPredict does operate under regulation though, and running markets having the potential to be viewed as distasteful could make a securities commission re-authorization more difficult. And so a cautious market would refrain from running socially useful contracts. Recall that the DARPA markets were aborted after a couple of the worst senators in the US characterized them as allowing for betting on terrorism. Shame. I'd reckon that the odds on the drink drive limit dropping are close to 50/50. If it were a 90-10 thing, the conditional markets probably wouldn't work well - we had a lot of nonsense in the DOW conditional markets on Bernanke's reappointment when the odds of reappointment were upwards of 95%.

A good conditional market will require a policy that's definitive, that's likely to have an effect in the short term (within a year or so) on a regularly measured and hard to manipulate outcome, an initial probability of the policy's adoption that's neither a sure thing nor a complete longshot, and a long enough interval between the launch of the policy contract and the policy becoming either a sure thing or a lost cause. This would have been a decent one but for the fear it could bring down the market.

Encouraging news

Some of the doctors at a recent Wellington conference on organ transplantation favour compensation for donors or even encouraging importing purchased organs.

Paying people $5000 to part with their kidneys would help tackle poor organ donor rates, a health expert says.

Auckland Renal Transplant Group clinical director Stephen Munn said yesterday that health officials should look at following Iran's lead with the "commercialisation" of organs harvested from living donors. New Zealand has one of the lowest organ donor rates.

He spoke out as the Future of Organ and Tissue Donation seminar began at Victoria University.

Work and Income currently pays living donors up to 12 weeks' sickness benefit and some related costs during and after the operation.

Professor Munn proposed that New Zealanders who donated part of their liver or a kidney receive an incentive of about $5000 as well as expenses. "We should have the balls to think about it," he said.

The NZ Herald notes we're burying our heads in the sand if we think banning trade helps things:

Professor Rosman, a speaker at a conference on NZ's low organ-donor rate held in Wellington yesterday, said he did not approve of the practice and would never recommend it, but there was no point in ignoring it.

He proposed allowing people to buy organs, but setting up a safe hospital in a Third World country so they could receive healthy organs and be well cared for.

Professor Rosman said it was easy to find kidneys for sale through the internet.

"The problem is, we don't know where it happens - it's usually small hospitals in the bush and people get bad kidneys, they may get HIV ... We've seen it in the past.

"We say it's unethical to do that. It's unethical to buy organs from poor people.

"But if you could save your family by selling an organ and you could do that in a proper hospital and you know you would be seen every half-year after your surgery and have proper controls and be safe and not be fobbed off with $100 [instead of the promised $10,000 payment] ...

"I think in the end that's a better system, otherwise we're just fooling ourselves."

Sensible.

The Radio New Zealand spot on the conference made a few nice points, including that the "Gift of Life" slogans do more to shut down rational debate than they do to encourage altruistic donation.

Maybe we'll yet see some progress.

MacDoctor also supports cadaveric sales. I of course agree with him that this is best done with prior consent. He also emphasizes that the public health system ought to be able to bid for organs in such a system; I suppose I'd taken this as obvious, but it's well worth noting.

MacDoctor worries slightly that allowing commercialized live organ transplant may violate physicians' duty to do no harm. Fortunately, the best evidence now suggests that there's no harm done if the transplants are done in good conditions with adequate follow-up care for donors. The more we effectively force folks to go overseas, the more we ensure that donors are treated poorly. I'd prefer things be done entirely here, but Professor Rosman's suggestion noted above also seems a very nice solution.

But MacDoctor's bigger worry is about exploitation. I'd again note that the worst cases he's suggesting are rather unlikely if transplants are done here*, but Rosman's suggestion also ought to be able to avoid the more potentially troubling forms of exploitation. I'm unsurprisingly untroubled by the more minor forms of exploitation, like MacDoctor's "How ethical would it be to take part of the liver of a man with a gambling addiction in return for wiping his debt?" There are all kinds of similarly exploitative transactions that take place regularly, with fewer beneficial consequences. Folks entering prostitution or taking on high mortality risk jobs because of financial pressure, for example. Last I'd checked, mortality rates among fishermen was higher than mortality rates for live kidney donors; for liver lobe donors, I think the rates were comparable. Why would it then be morally unacceptable to let someone take on a risk that helps to save someone else's life in exchange for money but morally acceptable to let someone take on a very similar risk that helps us get tasty fish in exchange for money?

I'm happy though to second MacDoctor's call for an organ donor registry, legally binding, and instantly available to medical folks who need to make a quick call on whether to start harvesting. But if that, plus increased promotion of organ donation, plus opening a market in cadaveric organs, plus LifeSharers isn't enough to knock out the waiting list, I hope we can give a regulated market a second look.

*I'm imagining, of course, the relevant Green Party "Buy New Zealand Made" campaign.

More Sport and Economics

Getting back to Economics while still on blogging on sport, I heard Keith Quinn on Radio Sport yesterday, castigating the government for its refusal to commit $600m to underwrite a bid from Auckland to host the 2018 Commonwealth Games. At the same time that I think that $600m to host the Games would be a scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money, I have a tinge of sadness mixed with nostalgia that the Games are unlikely to return to New Zealand any time soon.

The nostalgia comes from the 1974 Games in Christchurch. As an 11-year old, I got to be one of the kids running on to the athletics field in the opening ceremony dressed in coloured plastic to form a human version of the games symbol. And the following day on the first day of competition, I was selling programmes at QEII park, and got the opportunity later in the day to sit in one of the numerous unsold prime, near-the-finish-line seats and watch Dick Taylor’s incredible gold-medal race in the 10,000 metres.

So I am wondering, if we could host the Games in 1974 even with prime seats left over for programme-selling squatters, and less competition for broadcasting rights, why can we not today. Did the government spend the equivalent of $600m back then (in which case, I promptly lose my nostalgia), or has the cost of hosting the Games spiralled out of control? If the latter, what costs so much now that did not back then?

Reciprocation

The first time I heard of New Zealand was around the second grade. For social studies, we had to do a project on a country. I picked New Zealand and massacred one of our National Geographics.

Then, in late elementary school onwards, New Zealand started making news in Canada for its economic reforms. In 1993, when I was finishing high school, CTV's flagship documentary programme W5 aired a lengthy program on New Zealand's economic reforms and how Canada needed to make similar reforms before being forced to. Roger Douglas's reforms featured prominently if I recall correctly; unfortunately, I can't find any video of it online.

"New Zealand," which drew an audience of 1.6 million, had a huge influence on Canadians. Indeed, politicians used it as justification for slashing social services in the name of debt-reduction. Ralph Klein's Conservative government in Alberta, for example, included transcripts of the program when it sent back rejected grant applications.

Ah, good times.

New Zealand's economic reforms often came up in undergrad, either with other students with the Reform Party on Campus, or while doing intern work for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Peter Holle at FCPP highlighted Roger Douglas's reforms; I think a Douglas quote on the need to move quickly in reforms was up on his wall at the time. Frontier had a few pamphlets on the Kiwi reforms; I still have copies.

And so when I interviewed here in 2003, I was more than happy to answer when folks asked why I'd want to move to New Zealand: New Zealand has all the good stuff from Canada but without the worst bits. It's never -40 and the stupidest bits of Canadian policy had here been knocked out by Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.

So I'm more than a bit pleased that Sir Roger's a fan:

14 hours ago

Roger Douglas 

I read a few economics blogs in addition to some of those already suggested. For NZ issues, you can't do any better than:

http://www.offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/
http://www.antidismal.blogspot.com/
http://www.tvhe.co.nz/

I was surprised by the lack of international blogs. There are two international economics blogs I consider a must-read. They are:

http://econlog.econlib.org/
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/

Eric Crampton (at offsettingbehaviour) really is a national treasure I think.

14 hours ago

I don't blush easily, but still....

I very much doubt I'd be here at all absent Sir Roger's work, so call it mutual.

Shame on the NZRFU

This doesn’t happen very often. In fact, the last time was almost 29 years ago, but I found myself agreeing 100% with what John Minto wrote in his Press column this week. There is no on-line version that I can find yet, but his column was being critical of the NZRFU for declining to apologise to Maori for their decision to exclude Maori from selection in the All Black teams to tour South Africa in 1928, ’49 and ‘60. It is not if this idea came from nowhere or was ill-timed, as this article shows:

The author of a new book on the history of Maori rugby, Malcolm Mulholland, found while researching Beneath the Maori Moon that it was still a burning issue for some whanau and former players.

He wrote to the NZRU last year inviting
it to apologise, but rugby's governing body has refused.

The NZRFU as the guardians of New Zealand rugby have a lot to be proud of in the role that rugby has played in race relations in New Zealand, with great players like George Nepia and JB Smith being national heroes for Maori and Pakeha alike. But their decision send representative teams to South Africa while not selecting these two superstars, amongst others, for purely racial reasons was a disgrace, as was their decision to not schedule a game between the Springboks and a Maori team in 1937 following the fallout from the infamous telegram sent by a white South African journalist after the Springboks played a Maori team on their first tour here in 1921:

“Thousands Europeans frantically cheering on band of coloured men to defeat members of own race was too much for springboks who frankly disgusted”

To not issue an apology now effectively aligns the current NZRFU with those regrettable decisions from the past. How easy an apology would have been; how silly to spurn the opportunity.

The moral case for kidney markets

Luke Malpass helpfully points me to some work by philosopher Jeremy Shearmur in the CIS Policy journal.

It can still be argued that all this [allowing a regulated market in transplant organs] simply sanctions something that, morally, should not be taking place. I agree there is something distasteful about the ‘gaze’ of the rich person who looks on others as something like collections of alienable body parts. But bear in mind that other pressures bear on potential live donors, that the shortfall in kidney supplies from voluntary donors will be increasingly dire, and that black markets are liable to generate outcomes that are worse than we could expect from legal and regulated or certified markets. In the face of this difficult problem, we would do best to embrace incomplete commodification, and to try to arrange that our regulations or systems of certification deliver the best outcomes possible in difficult circumstances. There remains something morally unattractive about kidney sale and the commodification of the body. But it is far more unattractive for us to let our moral scruples about this condemn others to die from kidney failure, or at best a long period of misery on dialysis.

Read Shearmur's full argument here and here.

Michael Laws writes sensibly on problems in the New Zealand system about a month ago in the Sunday Star Times (HT: Andy Tookey)

Stupidity. In specific, a fatal combination of medical mindlessness and cultural ignorance. All wrapped into one piece of PC legislation called the Human Tissue Act (2008). The act was supposed to make organ donation simpler and numerous. It has had the opposite effect because it allows relatives to overrule the intent and wishes of the dead. It also elevates superstitious gibberish and cultural gobbledegook to the same pantheon as reason and logic.

Add a failure of leadership at Organ Donation New Zealand Dr Stephen Streat making Corrections' Barry Matthews look like some kind of Harvard genius and you have what you have. Hundreds of desperate Kiwis awaiting the chance for life, and tens of thousands of New Zealanders going to the grave, intact and entire.

Streat's performance is central to the failure of organ donation in this country. He opposed the sensible suggestions contained in National MP Jacqui Blue's 2006 private member's bill that would have created a central register for organ donations. He was instrumental in the construction of the Human Tissue Act and remains a resolute defender of the relative veto. Despite it being his job to find new donors, the total number dropped to just 31 last year. All he now needs is the imprimatur of State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie to be wholly condemned.