Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Cost-Benefit Analyzing My Efforts At Policy Analysis and Advocacy

I want to do a back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit evaluation of my own efforts at policy analysis/evangelizing, at least to put some kind of bounds on my contribution. The policy I’ve put the most thought and effort into is drug policy, more specifically the “opioid epidemic.”

Heroin/fentanyl overdose deaths (accidental) rose from 2,124 in 1999 to 33,534 in 2017, according to data published by the CDC. I consider this rise to be entirely the fault of bad drug policy. In fact, I even think the 2,124 figure from 1999 is a high estimate of what overdoses would be in a legal market, with safe injection facilities, pharmaceutical-grade drug supplies, and assistance services that are likely to exist in a free market for drugs. (When something is highly in demand but potentially lethal, products and services typically emerge to make it safer. And people tend to purchase these kinds of safety features.) But that’s not too important. Let’s just suppose that the number of unnecessary heroin overdose deaths is about 2,000 under total legalization and that bad drug policy raises it to 33,500. (Yes, I’m assuming the conclusion that I like for the sake of this argument, having supplied that supporting argument elsewhere.) A total reversal of bad drug policy would save 31,500 lives a year, about 86 lives a day. If my efforts shift public opinion and the opinions of important policy makers ever so slightly, and if I bring about some kind of policy reform one day earlier than what would have otherwise been, it will save about 86 lives. That’s a big deal to me. I could make this calculation a lot more conservative, making it contrary to my preferred conclusion, and it’s still easily worth the time and effort I’ve put into it.

What’s my actual contribution? Hard to say. Maybe I’ve had no effect whatsoever, and all my words are mere dust in the wind. I think I’ve had some impact on elite opinion, and in some cases I’ve been the point of the spear on this topic. I’ve had e-mail correspondence with some of the important public intellectuals who are particularly outspoken on this topic. Some of them have told me that I influenced their opinions, and one asked me to write a paper with him. Three years ago when I really started researching, I could find very little published material that was skeptical of the standard narrative. And much of what I found was incomplete or not very satisfying. I think I’ve made some unique observations and brought them to attention at least a day sooner than they otherwise would have been. What impact this has on any actual policy change, I don’t know. Maybe the zeitgeist changes slowly and deterministically, regardless of any individual person's evangelism. Maybe I’m just a cause and not an effect of shifting opinions on drug policy. Whatever. The point is there is a massive problem to be solved, and I can be happy if I’ve had even a small impact on shifting policy in the right direction.

Maybe I’m 180 degrees wrong and moving policy in the wrong direction. Or maybe I’m right but arguing my point so poorly that the blow-back will tilt policy in the wrong direction. In either of those cases, my contribution would be negative in a big way. So it’s really important to do this right. Policy analysis is hard. It requires serious thought and careful communication.

________________________________

I kind of knew this would happen. I wanted to write this post, but I thought “Geez, this is going to sound extremely self-congratulatory!” I want to warn against self-delusion. Anyone who thinks they are single-handedly saving dozens of lives probably needs a reality check. Scott Alexander’s piece Stop Adding Zeroes makes this point really well: Don’t just come up with a huge estimate of the problem, multiply it by something small, and say “Even if we only do this much it’s worth it!” I hope it doesn't sound like that's what I'm doing in this post. That said, it is very important to get policy right, because public policy applies to hundreds of millions of people. A bad policy with a small effect can kill thousand of people if it's applied to a large enough population. Ronald Coase once said something to the effect (I can't find the exact quote at this moment): If a public servant can delay for two weeks a bad policy that costs a billion dollars per year, he's earned his salary for a lifetime. Maybe this is slightly question-begging because it assumes that public servants can easily identify good and bad policies. (Should anyone feel confident about this ever, given that this is what we're all arguing about all the time?) Still, I think there's something salvageable here: It's really important to get policy right. 

No comments:

Post a Comment