Budgets are about choices and priorities. We promote policies and fund services we believe the government should pursue because we want those things to generate positive outcomes for our society. We weigh the costs of implementing those policies or programs against the worth or value of the outcomes they produce. In other words, “Costs can only be understood in light of the benefits…they would generate,” as Jennifer Rosenberg of the Institute for Policy Integrity has stressed.
At least some trucking industry analysts said they expect the latest version of the hours-of-service rule to land back in federal court because the rule seems to satisfy no one.
“I think the industry’s going to challenge it, and I think there’s a good chance that the public interest groups are going to challenge it,” said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity in the New York University School of Law.
In the net neutrality debate, Internet Service Providers like AT&T and Verizon, have said they need to charge content providers for prioritization so they can invest in improving infrastructure: faster internet service for all, they say.
But placing a price on prioritizing content creates an inherent disincentive to expand infrastructure. ISPs would profit from a congested Internet in which some content providers will be more than willing to pay an additional fee for faster delivery to users. Content providers like the New York Times and Google would have little choice but to fork it over to get their information to end users. But end users would be unlikely to see the promised upgrades in speed. Those are some of the results of research we conducted on the Internet market.
A study released by the Institute for Policy Integrity in October describes how a weakening of the principle of network neutrality might impact the Web. Based on an analysis of Internet usage, it finds that Internet infrastructure and content work together to generate huge economic benefits for consumers—possibly as much as $5,686 per user, per year.
Eliminating network neutrality, as some have proposed, may reduce incentives to invest in Internet content and infrastructure.
The NYU study represents a smart new way of looking at an old problem; an economic evaluation that strips away some of the emotion (and demagogeury) that surrounds any discussion of crime and justice. It’s easier to be “tough on crime” when you can pay the price, right? But now we can’t. And the collective poverty within our criminal justice systems isn’t going to ease on its own. So bring in the economists! And let the stale, old law-and-order crowd step aside.
There’s an interesting study out from the NYU School of Law which buttresses the argument that America would save a ton of money down the road, and make life easier for many of its citizens, if lawmakers today were able to muster up the moxie to remodel criminal justice systems. It’s a concept that requires political foresight and a patient public, which means most politicians and their constituents will blindly reject it, but I hope serious people everywhere take a long look at this.
A new report out today from NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity encourages policymakers to apply an economic analysis to criminal justice policy. And such an analysis, the report says, would reach this conclusion: “Public safety can be prioritized and even improved at a lower cost than traditional incarceration, using techniques like behavioral therapy for young offenders, intensive supervision, or a new iteration of a drug court. “
Corporate opponents of Net Neutrality have been arguing that rules protecting an open Internet will stifle innovation and economic growth. But a new study says that is just plain false.
New York University Law School’s nonpartisan Institute for Policy Integrity says the Internet generates huge economic benefits for consumers – as much as $5,600 per user, per year.
Executive director Mike Livermore explains that the infrastructure of the Net – the wires, cables and other hardware – and the content that flows through that hardware – combine
to create value for the user. Livermore says that without Net Neutrality rules to keep the Internet an open, level playing field for everyone who uses it, the value to users could diminish.
A study by the Institute of Policy and Integrity at New York University has crunched some numbers and determined that the combination of network infrastructure and content that comprise the Internet offers significant economic value to consumers. The authors describe their methods below:
“The results suggest that the consumer surplus generated by the Internet is very large. The average survey respondent spent 114.5 minutes a day on the Internet recreationally. The benefits that use generates are equivalent to 5.2 percent to 7.1 percent of income. If we use the median income value of Pew’s survey, we find that individual consumers collect between $4,155 and $5,686 worth of value from the Internet per year. This estimate is big, but it is in the same neighborhood as those found by Goolsbe and Klenow. They found that the consumer benefits of the Internet were somewhere between 2 percent and 3 percent of total income. The amount of time consumers spend on the Internet suggests that they receive a great deal of benefit from access.”
A new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law finds that a weakening of net neutrality rules might actually “reduce incentives to invest in Internet content and infrastructure.”
In sum, the authors determined that Web users “collect between $4,155 and $5,686 worth of value from the Internet per year.” And the report notes an end to net neutrality rules — the FCC’s version of which the authors describe as “imperfect” — could shift investment from content creation into service provision, reducing the value of the Internet to its users.
Viewing all news in Safety and Consumer Protection
Page 4 of 8