A conceptual note on accounting for budget internalities in public policy making
In a recent paper, Fleming, Heinecke and Dollery (2007) developed the government failure taxonomic system advanced by Charles Wolf into a conceptual framework to incorporate positive and negative internalities for analyzing public programs and policies. However, their paper unfortunately ignored the treatment of budget internalities, often an important question in real-world policy applications. This neglect is remedied in the present note by extending the analytical framework to include this important type of internal cost.
An analytical framework for assessing the impact of internalities on policy and projects using examples from Papua New Guinea
The government failure paradigm is nowadays an integral part of modern policy analysis. Several taxonomic models of government failure have been advanced, perhaps most notably the theory of ‘non-market’ failure developed by Charles Wolf. This model identifies four main sources of socially sub-optimal policy outcomes consequent upon the failure of public agencies, including ‘internalities’. Using examples drawn from the Australian foreign aid environment in Papua New Guinea, this paper develops a conceptual framework for incorporating positive and negative internalities into the analysis of the impact of aid on development projects, programs and policies. It is argued inter alia that previous work has neglected the significance of these internalities.
Agriculture and Intellectual Property Rights: Economic, Institutional and Implementation Issues in Biotechnology
1: Introduction, V Santaniello et al. 2: Patent and Other Private Legal Rights for Biotechnology Inventions (Intellectual Property Rights - IPR), D D Evenson, P.L.L.C., Washington, USA 3: Intellectual Property Rights of Plant Varieties and of Biotechnology in the European Union, V Santaniello 4: Intellectual Property Rights under the Convention on Biological Diversity, W Lesser, Cornell University, USA 5: An Economic Approach to Identifying An `Effective Sui Generis System' for Plant Variety Protection Under TRIPS, W Lesser 6: Recent Intellectual Property Rights Controversies and Issues at the CGIAR, S H Bragdon, IPGRI, Rome, Italy 7: Economics of Intellectual Property Rights for Agricultural Technology, R E Evenson 8: The Market Value of Farmers' Rights, R Mendelsohn, Yale University, USA 9: International Crop Breeding in a World of Proprietary Technology, B D Wright, University of California, USA 10: Knowledge Management and the Economics of Agricultural Biotechnology, D Zilberman and C Yarkin, University of California, USA and A Heiman, Hebrew University, Israel 11: Comparing Allocation of Resources in Public and Private Research, S Lemarie, Universite Pierre-Mendes, Grenoble, France 12: Biotechnology Inventions: What Can We Learn From Patents?, D K N Johnson, Wellesley College, Massachusetts, USA and V Santaniello 13: Biotechnology Inventions: Patent Data Evidence, A Zohrabyan, Yale University, USA and R E Evenson 14: Property Rights and Regulations for Transgenic Crops in North America, G Carlson and M Marra, North Carolina State University, USA 15: Intellectual Property Rights, Canola and Public Research in Canada, P W B Phillips, University of Saskatchewan, Canada