Abstract: August 1995 - Do funding priorities for health and safety policies reflect irrational fears? the disaster of the month - rather than address more fundamental problems? A thousand people were surveyed to gauge popular feelings about funding choices between environmental and public health programs. In developing and industrial countries alike, there is concern that health and safety policy may respond to irrational fears - to the disaster of the month - rather than address more fundamental problems. In the United States, for example, some policymakers say the public worries about trivial risks while ignoring larger ones and that funding priorities reflect this view. Many public health programs with a low cost per life saved are underfunded, for example, while many environmental regulations with a high cost per life saved are issued each year. Does the existing allocation of resources reflect people's preoccupation with the qualitative aspects of risks, to the exclusion of quantitative factors (lives saved)? Or can observed differences in the cost per life saved of environmental and public health programs be explained by the way the two sets of programs are funded? Cropper and Subramanian examine the preferences of U.S. citizens for health and safety programs. They confronted a random sample of 1,000 U.S. adults with choices between environmental health and public health programs, to see which they would choose. The authors then examined what factors (qualitative and quantitative) seem to influence these choices. Respondents were asked about pairs of programs, among them: smoking education or industrial pollution control programs, industrial pollution control or pneumonia vaccine programs, radon eradication or a program to ban smoking in the workplace, and radon eradication or programs to ban pesticides. The survey results, they feel, have implications beyond the United States. They find that, while qualitative aspects of the life-saving programs are statistically significant in explaining people's choices among them, lives saved matter, too. Indeed, for the median respondent in the survey, the rate of substitution between most qualitative risk characteristics and lives saved is inelastic. But for a sizable minority of respondents, choice among programs appears to be insensitive to lives saved. The interesting question for public policy is what role the latter group plays in the regulatory process. This paper - a joint product of the Environment, Infrastructure, and Agriculture Division, Policy Research Department, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Asia Technical Department - is part of a larger effort in the Bank to see what can be learned about efficient environmental policy by examining the U.S. experience with environmental regulation. The authors may be contacted at mcropper@@worldbank.org or usubramanian@@worldbank.org.

July 1995 Cross-country comparisons suggest that poor people tend to be in worse health than others, and that their health responds more to differences in public health spending. Are the poor less healthy? Does public health spending matter more to them? Bidani and Ravallion decompose aggregate health indicators using a random coefficients model in which the aggregates are regressed on the population distribution by subgroups, taking account of the statistical properties of the error term and allowing for other determinants of health status, including public health spending. This also allows them to test possible determinants of the variation in the underlying subgroup indicators. They implement the approach with data on health outcomes and poverty measures for 35 developing countries. Bidani and Ravallion find that poor people have appreciably worse health status on average than others--and that differences in public health spending tend to matter more to the poor. This is probably because the nonpoor are in a better position to buy private health care. This paper--a product of the Poverty and Human Resources Division, Policy Research Department--is part of a larger effort in the department to understand the interlinkage between poverty and human development.

Abstract: August 1995 - By and large, it appears that the goals of agricultural reform are being met in Mexico. But measures such as decoupling income supports and price supports or reorienting research and extension could help farmers who cannot afford access to machinery and purchased inputs and services. López, Nash, and Stanton report the results of a study of Mexican farm households using 1991 survey data and a smaller resurvey of some of the same households in 1993. One study goal was to empirically examine the relationship between assets and the output supply function. Using a production model focusing on capital as a productive input, they found that both the supply level and the responsiveness (elasticities) to changing input and output prices tend to depend on the farmer's net assets and on how productive assets are used. Regression analysis using data from the surveys shows that farmers who use productive assets such as machinery tend to be positively responsive to price changes, while those with no access to such assets are not. Another study goal was to monitor the condition of Mexican farmers in a rapidly changing policy environment. The 1991 survey data suggest that farmers with more limited use of capital inputs (the low-CI group) were more likely to grow principally corn and to grow fewer crops, on average, than the others. They also had more problems getting credit and were less likely to use purchased inputs, such as seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides, or to use a tractor to prepare the soil. They tended to be less well-educated, and their land tended to be of lower quality. Results from the panel data showed conditions generally improving for the average farmer in the sample area between 1991 and 1993, during a period when agricultural reforms were implemented. Cropping patterns were more diversified, the average size of landholdings increased, the average farmer received more credit (in real terms), more farm households earned income from off-farm work, and more farmers used purchased inputs. Asset ownership and educational attainment also improved modestly. The very small low-CI group in this sample fared as well as, or better than, the other groups. True, their level of educational achievement fell, and fewer of them had off-farm income than in 1991. But their use of credit, irrigation, machinery, and purchased inputs increased more than for other groups. The limited data are not proof of a causal link, but the fact that the goals are being met should at least ensure that adverse conditions are not undermining reform. Farmers that lacked access to productive assets did not respond as well to incentives or take advantage of the opportunities presented by reform and may need assistance, particularly to get access to credit markets. There may be a good argument for decoupling income supports from price supports for farmers, since income payments that are independent of the vagaries of production could provide a more stable signal of creditworthiness than price supports do. Possibly reorienting research and extension services more to the needs of low-CI producers could also improve the efficiency with which the sector adjusts to new incentives. Hypotheses and tentative conclusions from this study will be explored further when more data are collected in 1995. This paper - a product of the International Trade Division, International Economics Department--is part of a larger effort in the department to investigate the effects of international trade policy on individual producers. The study was funded by the Bank's Research Support Budget under the research project Rural Poverty and Agriculture in Mexico: An Analysis of Farm Decisions and Supply Responsiveness (RPO 678-23).