440 likes | 534 Views
The People Based Economy. Kevin M. Murphy The University of Chicago October 25, 2013. U.S. Real Per Capita GDP 1889-2012. Where Does Growth Come From?. There are three primary sources of growth Investment in physical capital Investment in human capital
E N D
The People Based Economy Kevin M. Murphy The University of Chicago October 25, 2013
Where Does Growth Come From? • There are three primary sources of growth • Investment in physical capital • Investment in human capital • Improvements in technology (knowledge) • Primary goals of policy should be to • Maintain the incentive for physical investment • Provide an environment that fosters the growth of human capital • Provide rewards for innovation
How do People Fit into the Economic Picture? • People are important as both inputs and outputs • Human capital is our most important input • Accounts for roughly 65 percent of our productive capacity • With increasingly mobile capital and technology, countries will be increasingly defined by their human capital • The production and maintenance of human capital is our most important output • Education • Healthcare • On the job training
Explaining Changes In Education Returns Using Supply & Demand • Growth in the college premium can be explained by a very simple model • Model based on Katz-Murphy 1992 • The model: • Demand grows steadily over time • Fluctuations in supply cause education premiums to fluctuate • Supply grows faster than demand premium falls • Demand grows faster than supply premium rises
The Supply Response • Growth in the college premium has generated a predictable response – more people have gone on to college
Mean GPA of High School Graduates, High School Transcript Studies
DISTRIBUTION OF FIRST-YEAR UNDERGRADUATE GPA, BEGINNING POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS LONGITUDINAL STUDY
Improvements in Health & Longevity(Based on Murphy & Topel 2007)
Basic Results • Historical improvements in life expectancy have been very significant – improvements in longevity from 1970 to 2000 were worth roughly $95 trillion (or about $3.2 trillion per year) to U.S. citizens • Improvements in life expectancy have contributed about as much to overall welfare as have improvements in material wealth
Methodology • Groundhog Day model • Model based on willingness to pay • Willingness to pay based on market experience • Cigarettes • Safer cars • Risky jobs • Value is measured by the value to people not contribution to GDP
Recent & Longer Term Changes • Recent improvements are reflective of longer term gains in longevity • Gains were actually somewhat greater in earlier decades using a fixed valuation profile (like fixed basis GNP accounting) • Gains have become increasingly concentrated at older ages in recent decades
The Good News & the Bad News: • The Good: People value gains in health and longevity a lot • The Bad: Medical care is not cheap • While life extension added 3 trillion per year in value, medical expenditures grew by roughly 1 trillion per year • For the oldest groups expenditures grew by more than the value of life extension
Balancing the Costs & Benefits • In thinking about medical advances we must consider both sides of the equation • Progress is important • Controlling costs is important • Controlling costs raises the value of medical advances • Cost containment and medical progress complement one another
A Simple Example • 200 billion dollar “war on cancer” • 50% probability of success – 50% probability of total failure • Success = 10% reduction in cancer death rates • Based on Murphy & Topel – value of success ≈ $5 trillion • What about costs of care?
Costs of care • Two scenarios: • “good” outcome = treatment adds 2.5 trillion (50% of value) to costs of care • “bad” outcome = treatment adds 10 trillion (200% of value) to costs of care • Assume each scenario is equally likely • Three potential outcomes: • 50% chance of “Failure” = -$200 billion • 25% chance of “Good Success” = +$2.3 trillion • 25% chance of “Bad Success” = -$5.2 trillion • Expected gain = -$825 billion
What matters in this calculation? • Costs of research are small by comparison to costs and benefits (making them $100 billion or $300 billion has little effect) • Probability of success matters some but not much • Expected costs of care matter a lot • Question: What can we do to improve the situation? • Answer: Make good care decisions!
Example Continued • Improve care system = don’t implement if costs of care are high • Chance of “failure” now 75% • But expected gain now +$425 billion • Bottom line: appropriate cost containment RAISES the value of research by eliminating the major downside • The potential downside to research is not failure but unaffordable “success”
How do we get there? • Best solution: improve incentives and decisions in the delivery system – research will follow • Second best: change the direction of research to look only for lower cost solutions • Both enhance the case for more research
What does it take? • Improve incentives for doctors and patients to control costs • Use technologies appropriately – not all or nothing – many treatments will be cost effective for some patients not for others • Focus on treatments with low incremental costs – reduces problem of over use
Potential Pitfalls • Behavioral change is not free – people value behavior as well as health – people value eating and even smoking • Behavioral change that mitigates gains in longevity does not diminish the value of progress and maybe increases it • Behavioral factors increase in importance as care moves out of the hospital and into the household • Patient inputs make education more important and inequality a bigger issue
Important Policy Questions • How do we take advantage of growing demand for education and skills? • Increasing investment in higher education • Improving education at lower levels • This is a long term project • How do we take advantage of potential gains from medical advance? • Balancing the costs and benefits • Improving delivery system/ treatment choices • Talking advantage of scalable technologies and the world-wide growth in incomes