I’m just back from 3 lovely days in Wellington (nice weather for a change!) at the NZ Association of Economists Conference. It had a good vibe and felt like there was a wider range of interesting papers than the last one I attended. The topics of interest for me are listed below (I will post in more detail once the papers have been uploaded to the NZAE website):

- Tax Reform: The perennial favourite, Capital Gains Tax, made some waves as did some more detailed examination of a possible Land Tax. This initially popped up 18 months ago as a floated idea and more recently was discussed at length over at Interest.co.nz.  The session on Tax Reform was sponsored by the Treasury so expect more debate on this in the near future.

- Aid and Development: There were a few papers on corruption and developmental outcomes which were worth following (though I haven’t seen anything to rival Paul Collier’s work). I especially enjoyed a paper on whether aid was helping to achieve the Millenium Development Goals. To me it was clear that whilst aid can make some contribution, targeted p2p actions such as microfinance and giving are more likely to have a lasting impact as they tunnel through the swathe of government and administration on both ends of the aid pipleline. Message to Government: Let people do the giving.

- Business and Innovation: It’s good to see economists looking at this topic since it’s of major importance to NZ. Again lack of capital and R+D incentives for business was a clear problem. We simply can’t compete with countries like Finland or Israel when all our capital is tied up in housing.

- Health: One good paper on “fat” taxes or food “subsidies”. It simply reinforced my position of taking a supply side approach. It’s hard to influence demand through pricing strategies when the underlying commodity (food) is experiencing huge swings in price. As with oil and carbon taxes, the prices movements in food prices will overwhelm any attempt to reduce demand by taking away GST for example (12.5%). Perhaps incentives like gift vouchers/cash in savings accounts will help focus (a bit like the idea to pay girls an annual stipend for each year they don’t get pregnant). We have to get our future health costs down somehow and creative solutions may be required. Time to call in the behavioral psychologists methinks.

- The Financial Crisis: Nice paper looking back at financial collapses over the last 200 years. Yes they happen with regularity…..whoa…yes we know that. The cycle goes back as far as records allow. Even the Bank of England was not immune from overstretching itself… a run on the Central Bank itself. Ooops. So my simple question is: When are we going to change the system?

Overall it was a good conference and a lot came out of it. For next year I can see more focus on the impact of microfinance and p2p activities, more focus on tax reform, more focus on the debt based financial system and hopefully we will have some more ideas to contribute ourselves.

Also good to see someone with a laptop on the go! Surely a first for the NZAE.

With rising food prices starting to kick in globally the specter of food fights is becoming a reality (hat tip to Nevil).

Riots have been seen in many countries now and food, like climate change, is starting to be seen as a national security issue.  The Philipines is facing major rice shortages which is almost unthinkable for a country where rice is a staple. It is also causing serious unrest.

Even here in New Zealand consumers are unhappy about paying 60% more for a block of cheese which has been produced down the road.

Its a difficult situation that will take some sorting out. Producers want the best prices they can get and so will sell into the international market. Subsidies continue to distort the market.

World Bank President, Robert Zoellick has suggested a move away from direct aid and an attempt to remove barriers, create local markets and improve local production.

About time! That’s what i like about Kiva which promotes empowerment and local solutions. That is the way forward. Forget about the huge projects of the 1970s and 80s which dropped so many developing nations into the debt trap. Create a level playing field and encourage local solutions.

From the Rt Hon Balneus comes an interesting proposition to reduce teenage pregnancies: simply offer a cash incentive for not getting pregnant.

This came about from a post about population reduction being the answer to reducing carbon emissions. As i noted in my previous post population growth, especially in developing countries, is putting severe pressure on all resources.

China has been on to this well in advance with its one child per couple policy.  For developed countries teenage pregnancies have been a bit of a problem and something that has not been adequately addressed. This idea fits in neatly with the premise of the “Logic of Life” by Tim Harford.

Tim notes that people make complicated  calculations about potential trade offs every day whether its to have unprotected sex or park illegally. He argues cogently that we do respond to incentives and change behaviour when the pay offs look in our favour.

For example he notes research which showed juvenile crime lower or falling in US states where the age for adult criminality was lower than in states where it was higher. The reason was simple: the payoffs were worse for juvenile criminals in states where they would be tried in the adult system. Juveniles were simply responding to the market.

So for teenage pregnancies it is a similar story. Where welfare benefits are good for both mother and baby, there is no disincentive to get pregnant. So the payoffs for riskier behaviour are ok. That’s because as a society we value the rights of the baby and choose to provide for it regardless of how it arrived.

Now imagine we said to all teenage girls that for every year until a certain age (whether 18 or 21) they would receive $200 in a savings account for not getting pregnant. That would be an interesting idea to model.

Now I am sure there are many pros and cons to this but I like the idea of policymaking taking into account how people behave rather than what officials deem to be a good or right thing to do.