As the news from the Gulf of Mexico goes from very bad to even worse, so BP is increasingly coming under the international spotlight for its approach to risk management and safety. Was it sufficiently cautious? Could the accident on April 20 that killed 11 men and has been gushing some 800,000 gallons per day of crude oil into the sea have been averted? When the consequences of a pipe rupture are so catastrophic, is ‘catastrophic risk’ appropriately priced? As Tony Hayward, BP’s Chief Executive, told the Financial Times (see links below): “It was ‘an entirely fair criticism’ to say the company had not been fully prepared for a deep-water oil leak.”
One insight into BP’s approach to risk has come to light with the leaking of a 2002 memo from BP on how human life ought to be valued in any cost–benefit analysis of a project. As the Chicagoist summarises the memo:
A two page document prepared by risk managers in 2002 titled “Cost benefit analysis of three little pigs” shows the type of thinking BP put into risk assessment. The memo shows, in cartoonish fashion, that blast resistant trailers for BP’s workers weren’t necessary, because the cost was too high. In 2005, a refinery caught fire, killing 15 and injuring 170 people.
So how should catastrophic risk be taken into account? What does a company do when the probability of a disaster is extremely low and yet the costs of such a disaster, were it to occur, are extremely high?
BP’s Shocking Memo The Daily Beast, Rick Outzen (25/5/10)
Old BP document calculates worth of human life with “Three Little Pigs” diagram Yahoo News, Brett Michael Dykes (25/5/10)
Industry can cut accident risks, says BP chief Financial Times, Ed Crooks and Edward Luce (2/6/10)
BP ‘not prepared’ for deep-water spill Financial Times, Ed Crooks (2/6/10)
The BP Oil Spill’s Lessons for Regulation Project Syndicate, Kenneth Rogoff (1/6/10)
US oil firms ‘unprepared’ for major offshore disaster BBC News (15/6/10)
Questions
- What is meant by catastrophic risk?
- Why is it difficult to put an accurate valuation on outcomes with a very low probability of occurrence?
- Explain the table entitled “Cost benefit analysis of three little pigs” in the Rick Outzen blog.
- How should human life be valued?
- What value should be put on a serious injury (of a particular type)?
- Should BP (or any other company, for that matter) ever conduct operations that risk human life? Explain your answer.
- On what basis should BP have decided whether or not to install a $500,000 acoustic trigger that could have shut off the well when the blowout protector failed?
- How is the existence of environmental externalities relevant to BP’s decisions on safety?
Below you will find links to the manifestos of the three main UK-wide parties for the general election on May 6. It’s not our role to suggest to those of you living in the UK with the right to vote how you should vote. The one thing we would suggest is that you consider carefully what the parties are proposing.
What is clear is that the state of the economy and the policies necessary to tackle economic problems are central to all the manifestos. As a student of economics, you should be able to assess the manifestos in terms of how the parties set out the economic problems facing the UK and what they propose doing about them.
So look through the manifestos below and then answer the questions we’ve posed about the UK economy and about the economic policies being proposed. If you are uncertain about how to answer them, then ask yourself what extra information would I need to enable me to give a good answer.
The manifestos (in alphabetical order)
The Conservative Party manifesto
The Labour Party manifesto
The Liberal Democrat Party manifesto
Other sources
We are reluctant to recommend newspaper articles, as all newspapers at election time tend to be highly partisan and are therefore likely to give you a very specific ‘spin’ on the parties’ proposals. Perhaps the two best independent sources are the BBC and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. See:
Election analysis 2010 Institute for Fiscal Studies
Election 2010 BBC News
Stephanomics Stephanie Flanders’ blog (this links to the archive).
Questions
- How do the analyses of the economic problems facing the UK differ between the three manifestos?
- Compare the policies of the three parties for cutting the public-sector deficit. Consider the following issues: the size and nature of any cuts in government expenditure; the size and nature of any tax increases; the timing of the meaures.
- What assumptions are being made about the determinants of aggregate demand over the coming months and the role of fiscal policy in this?
- Compare the policies of the three parties towards the distribution of income. To what extent have the parties taken into account possible incentive/disincentive effects of policies of redistribution?
- To what extent are the parties proposing using the tax system to tackle problems of externalities? Give examples and assess how effective the policies are likely to be.
- To what extent do each of the manifestos leave you with unanswered questions about the economy and how their proposed policies will tackle economic problems?
Traffic congestion is both frustrating and costly. As The Economist article below states:
Congestion does more than irritate drivers. It makes employees and deliveries late, it snarls up modern “just-in-time” supply chains and it clogs up labour markets by making commuting difficult. The cost of all this is almost impossible to measure. But a big review of transport carried out by Rod Eddington, a one-time boss of British Airways, put the cost between £7 billion and £8 billion ($10.6-$12.2 billion) a year.
So what can be done about it? The report, published by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), looks at various solutions. These range from staggering work times, car sharing and working from home, to improving roads and road pricing.
As economists we should look at the relative costs and benefits of alternative solutions in coming to sensible policy solutions. The problem is that people are often very emotional about traffic schemes. They may complain about sitting in traffic jams, but don’t want to pay to tackle the problem. There is thus a political element in any debate about solutions. Not surprisingly, the government has shied away from introducing road pricing
So what are the best solutions to traffic congestion and how do we overcome the political obstacles? The following articles look at these questions.
Articles
CBI urge radical changes to avoid gridlocked roads Independent, Peter Woodman (15/3/10)
Bunged up The Economist (15/3/10)
Road travel ‘needs big overhaul’ to avoid gridlock BBC News (15/3/10)
CBI sets out case for road pricing Logistics Manager (16/3/10)
CBI urges change to work patterns to avoid road gridlock Business Financial Newswire (15/3/10)
Road tolls ‘essential’ to avoid gridlock autoblog UK, Nic Cackett (15/3/10)
Report
Tackling congestion, driving growth CBI (March 2010)
Questions
- Why does the market fail to achieve the socially optimal amount and pattern of road use?
- What externalities are involved in road use?
- What are the arguments for and against increased road building as the solution to traffic congestion?
- Assess the arguments for and against road pricing
- If increasing use is to be made of road pricing, what is the best form for road pricing to take?
- Why is road pricing ‘lethal’ for politicians?
- Assuming you were in government and were acutely aware of how your policies might be perceived by the public and the press, what would you do about traffic congestion?
There has been much criticism of the European Emissions Trading Scheme, the world’s most significant cap-and-trade (tradable permits) scheme for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The main criticism is that the scheme has failed to make significant cuts in pollution. The cap was so loose in the first phase (2005–07) that by the end of this period, carbon was trading for as little as €0.02 per tonne. Although the cap on emissions was tightened by 7 per cent for phase 2 (2008–12) (see Economics, 7th ed, Box 12.5), causing the carbon price to rise to about €30.00 per tonne by mid 2009, since then the price has fallen as industry has cut output in response to the recession. By February 2010, the carbon price was around €12.50 per tonne (see the Guardian article Carbon price falls to new low). For carbon price data see the European Climate Change site.
The experience of the ETS has resulted in many people in the USA and elsewhere calling for the use of carbon taxes rather than cap and trade as the best means for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Others have called for a mix of measures. In the US Senate, three senators are seeking to overturn cap-and-trade proposals and take a sector-by-sector approach to cutting emissions.
But increasingly the evidence, supported by economic argument, is that cap and trade does work – or can be made to work – and that it is a better policy tool than carbon taxes. The following articles look at cap and trade and assess whether it really is the best alternative.
Buying off the big polluters looks bad but it works Sunday Times, Charles Clover (28/2/10)
Economists hail EU emissions trading success BusinessGreen, James Murray (15/2/10)
EU study plumps for cap & trade in ship carbon carbonpositive (17/2/10)
European carbon trading labelled ‘model for the world’ Ecologist (1/3/10)
Cap and Trade vs Carbon Tax – 6 Myths Busted Cleantech Blog (26/2/10)
Senators seen ditching cap and trade in new bill Reuters, Russell Blinch (27/2/10)
Senators to propose abandoning cap-and-trade Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson (27/2/10)
U.S. Senate may scrap Cap and Trade in exchange for Cap and Dividend The Energy Collective, Chris Schultz (27/2/10)
See also:
Emissions Trading Wikipedia
Questions
- What determines the price of carbon in the ETS? Why was it higher in 2008/9 than in 2007? Why has it fallen in recent months?
- Does it matter that the carbon price fluctuates with the business cycle?
- Explain whether it is better to allocate carbon credits free of charge or auction them.
- Assess whether or not the EU emissions trading scheme has been a success so far.
- Compare the relative merits of a cap-and-trade scheme with carbon taxes.
- What other alternatives are there to cap and trade and carbon taxes as means of curbing emissions? Compare their relative merits.
- What is the best means of curbing carbon emissions from shipping? Explain.
In 2010/11, government funding for UK universities will be 7 per cent less (£518m) than in 2009/10. This has led to calls for substantial increases in student fees in order to stave off a serious funding crisis for many universities. One such call has come from David Blanchflower. As the first article below states:
“A leading economist has called for students from well-off families to be charged the ‘market rate’ of up to £30,000 a year to go to university. David ‘Danny’ Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, said the “poor have been subsidising the rich” for too many years.”
But just what are the arguments for and against a substantial rise in fees and who should pay any rise in fees? Should it be only students of very well-off parents or should it include middle-income parents too? Or if student loans are available to cover higher fees, why should not the same fees apply to all students? Then there is the question of who benefits from a university education? How much should external benefits be taken into account?
Call for universities to charge well-off students £30,000 a year Observer, Anushka Asthana and Ian Tucker (27/12/09)
A rise in fees would make university education fairer Observer (27/12/09)
Who wants a two-year degree? Independent on Sunday, Richard Garner (27/12/09)
Briefing: University funding Sunday Times, Georgia Warren (27/12/09)
Universities face £500m cut in funding Financial Times, Nicholas Timmins (22/12/09)
The nightmare before Christmas: grant letter announces £135m cut Times Higher Education, John Morgan (27/12/09)
Fast-track degrees proposed to cut higher education costs Guardian, Polly Curtis (22/12/09)
Questions
- Why is the government planning to make substantial cuts to university funding?
- What are the arguments for and against the university sector bearing a larger percentage cut than most other areas of government expenditure?
- Should any rise in fees be born by parents or by students from future income?
- Identify the external benefits from higher education? How does the existence of such externalities affect the arguments about the appropriate charges for higher education?
- What are the economic arguments for and against moving towards more two-year degrees.
- Discuss the case for and against increasing the participation rate in higher education to 50 per cent of young people.
- Is higher education a ‘merit good’ and, if so, what are the implications for charging for higher education?