In general, there should be no planning restrictions regarding the height, size and location of new buildings in central London.

Presenter: Abel Schumann
Date: 13/1/12

House prices in London are among the highest in World. Nevertheless, large parts of the city are dominated by fairly low-rise developments. This is arguably due to planning regulations that limit height, size and location of new developments. By keeping the supply of housing and office space artificially low, these regulations inflate house prices and cause welfare losses for a majority of Londoners.

What are the intentions of the existing regulations?

What are the upsides, what are the downsides of increasing population density in central areas of London?

How to deal with the externalities of new high-rise developments?

Which part of existing regulations makes sense from a welfare perspective and which is due to the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) effect?

Some stylized facts:

-          Construction costs for residential high-rises of medium to high standard  are about £1300-£2000  per square meter, but average house prices in central London exceed £5000 per square metre.

-          Usually, planning permissions will only be granted if new developments adhere to size and appearance of existing buildings in the neighbourhood.

-          The height of buildings in large parts of London is restricted to ensure unobstructed views of Westminster, St. Paul’s and other landmarks from distant viewpoints such as Richmond Park, Greenwich Observatory and Hampstead Heath.

-          More than 90 percent of Westminster and roughly 50 percent of Camden, Islington, Hackney, City and Tower Hamlets are conservation areas in which essentially no new construction is possible.

-          There is a general height limit of 1000 feet for all buildings in London.

Links:

Glaeser et al. (2004): Why is Manhattan so Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in House Prices (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/glaeser/files/Manhattan.pdf)

The London Plan (general planning guidelines for London) (http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/introduction/)

The Camden Planning Guidance as an example for existing planning regulations (see especially points 2.10, 2.13, 2.14 and 2.15 for the dimensions of new buildings) (http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset?asset_id=2694288)

A good education

Date: 2/12/11
How far should government interfere in influencing the course choices of students (in particular those studying in a publicly funded system)?

Vocational qualifications were given a big push by the last Labour government, they were intended to provide students with work-related skills and spanned subjects in health, hair and beauty, construction or catering.

Since then, the numbers of children being entered for traditional academic subjects has declined, while the numbers taking vocational qualifications have soared. One concern is that schools might be pushing students into “easier” subjects (e.g. leisure and tourism) to improve theirresults.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8408787.stm

In an effort to reverse this trend the Coalition are stripping vocational subjects from schools league tables and will start measuring schools by the proportion of their pupils achieving at least a C grade in “English Baccalaureate” subjects (English, maths, a science, a foreign language and either history or geography)http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/24/gcse-pupils-must-do-traditional-subjects

Another complication is that, as the Coalition pursues an expansion in charter schools, it stands to lose control over the curriculum in such schools while it continues to fund them.

The questions I would like to discuss are:
-          What arguments might there be for such interference of the government in student’s choices of courses? (e.g. externalities, behavioural constraints…)
-          Even if education is free, can we not trust market forces to ensure students make the best choices considering the effect on their future prospects?
-          If we think there is an argument for interfering, do we think it should be towards encouraging practical/narrow skillsets or promoting a more well-rounded education?
-          Given that systems differ substantially between countries, which countries do we think have got it right?

All the MP3s I download are paid for, just not by me

Presenter: Jon Colmer

Date: 23/11/11
Should Intellectual property rights for music be maintained?

With the rise of the internet, and increases in technology (faster broadband) the costs of sharing music have dramatically declined. Is this a good thing? Should more resources be spent on monitoring and enforcing file sharing or should intellectual property for music be abandoned?

Who does current copyright protection benefit?  The consumers and creators of music, or record companies and music publishers?

Would reductions in copyright protection reduce the incentive to create good music in the future? 

If copyright protection was to be reduced, to what degree should this apply to other forms of media, i.e. television, film, literature?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/03/internet.intellectualproperty

http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/499.pdf

http://mortimer.fas.harvard.edu/concerts_01oct2010.pdf

http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2008/08/19/is-file-sharing-morally-wrong/

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/napster.htm 

Should doctors be allowed to prescribe placebos?

Presenter: Laura Derksen
Date: 18/11/11

Placebos (sugar pills) have been shown to be effective in treating a range of diseases and symptoms, including pain, depression, anxiety, Parkinson's disease, gastric ulcers, and chronic fatigue syndrome. They seem to work not only by causing a patient to feel better psychologically but also by actually improving certain conditions. 

Given this strange effect, should doctors prescribe placebos, and under what circumstances? 

Should placebo treatments receive NHS funding?

What if the placebo in question is quite expensive?

What if the therapy is administered by someone who believes the treatment to be genuine? 

What if a more effective medicine exists but a patient continues to seek the placebo treatment?

Links:

wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Placebos can work even if a patient doesn't believe in them: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind

The NHS funds homeopathy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/29/ban-homeopathy-from-nhs-doctors?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Sanctions: hurting the citizens or destabilizing the government?

Presenter: Mohammad Vesal
Date: 11/11/11
The use of UN resolutions to impose sanction on countries not respecting the international rules has been an old age device. Countries ratifying sanctions argue they will impose a cost on the government and will convince the authorities (if harsh enough) to obey the international rules. They usually argue the sanctions are for the good of the citizens of the countries and it hold up authorities accountable to the international rules of human rights, ….

Despite these there is no sign about the effectiveness of sanctions in the past and it is not clear how we distinguish between the costs on the government and costs on normal citizens. If anything  the government under sanctions can blame the foreigners for economic failures and raise the sense of unity (and hence authority) in the populace.

In this week discussion let’s consider the example of UN backed and unilateral sanctions against Iran. In the past 4 years the West has imposed new rounds of sanctions to convince the Iranian government to stop its nuclear program. The sanctions prohibit any export of items related to nuclear or military purposes or those that might have dual usage.

The citizens are clearly feeling the pain of the sanctions along various dimensions. The financial transactions with the rest of the world are getting extremely difficult. The civil aviation, shipping industry, oil and gas industry and other industries are affected.

As an example in the past six year, more than 700 Iranians are killed in 13 aircraft crashes and accidents. This is claimed to be mainly because sanctions prevent Iran access to buy new aircrafts or spare parts directly from the suppliers. As another example, many major contractors in Iran oil and gas industry dropped out because of the recent rounds of sanctions and the sector is suffering from underinvestment.



Thinking about the suffering of the citizens and no sign of change in government policies one might wonder about the effectiveness of sanctions and whether this is the right way to go.

How could one possibly justify sanctions on moral grounds?

Is it possible that sanctions stabilize rather than destabilize the government?

What are the costs of the sanctions on those who impose them?!


References:
http://www.economist.com/node/17204603: good overview of the impact of sanctions on Iran
http://www.economist.com/node/18867440: on the recent structural reforms in Iran
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ebcf3060-c732-11e0-a9ef-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1d7Tw49e6: Aviation Industry and Sanctions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/11/iran-elections-mehdi-karroubi-interview: sanctions helping the regime (interview)

7 billion and counting: Do we have an overpopulation problem?

Presenter: Oliver Pardo

Date: 4/11/10

This year we reached the astonishing number of 7 billion people living in this planet (around 7% of the number of people who have ever lived). Whenever this type of threshold is reached, concerns about our sustainability usually arise.

Is the current population trend sustainable?
Has been Malthus undoubtedly been refuted?
Does having a child have a negative externality on others?
Should the state constrain individuals' fertility choices, like China does?
Is there actually any overpopulation problem?
Is there any bound on the number of people the planet can sustain?

Some background readings:
On China's one child policy: http://www.economist.com/node/16846390
On scepticism of overpopulation: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sanyal3/English
A voice from the other side: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kieran-suckling/7-billion-population_b_1068567.html

Tim Harford on Malthus: http://timharford.com/2011/10/malthuss-ghost-and-baby-number-7bn/

The Limits of the Right to Protest

Presenter: Sam Marden
Date: 28/10/11

Recently the ‘occupy something’ movement has engaged in high profile acts of low-level ‘civil disobedience’ around the world. Most notably in London, where the future of the tent city outside of St. Pauls hangs in the balance, in Oakland California, where protestors were forcibly dispersed, and in New York where protestors crossing the Brooklyn Bridge were arrested.

The right to protest is considered an important element of liberal democracy, and protestors and commentators have compared the occupy movement to the various pro-democracy movements that comprised the Arab spring, it is however not clear the extent to which the protestors enjoy widespread support. Furthermore, many of the protests potentially impose large costs on others. Closure of one of Manhattan’s bridges is extremely costly even if only temporarily, the closure of St. Pauls is said to cost the church £16,000 per day, and adjacent businesses have claimed that revenues are down 80% compared to normal. Unlike more traditional demonstrations, protest camps can continue for long periods of time with St. Pauls protestors vowing to stay for ‘years’. Recent British examples of long running protests include Brian Haws anti-Iraq war camp was in Parliament Square for the best part of a decade, while the anti-Nuclear weapons protest at Greenham Common RAF lasted 20 years.

Questions for debate:

If non-disruptive forms of protest are available should protestors be allowed to protest in a disruptive fashion? To what extent should protestors be allowed to impose costs on others for political gain?

How much does the support of the general movement or specific protest matter? Should intensity of feeling count?

In order to be legitimate should a movement have a cause?

Should legislation strictly define what is and what isn’t an acceptable form of protest, or should the response be determined by public (and political) will, with all the messier legal implications that entails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_protest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience