Economics and Ebola

In his article, What Economics Can Teach Us about Ebola, Goodman (2014) argues that there are two ways to look at complex social systems. First, there is the engineering approach. The engineering approach assumes that the society is broken and that it cannot deal with those issues that come upon it. In response, such issues are delegated to the experts to handle. The economic approach on the other hand attempts to resolve all issues by the use of incentives. In contrast to the economic approach, the social engineering approach believes that no obstacle would come in the way of experts in their attempts to resolve the issue.

Regarding the issue of Ebola, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has already determined that this is an issue for the experts to handle. They are therefore out to look for a cure and to ensure that the disease is contained. Goodman claims that the CDC director has always assured Americans that Ebola would not get into the US and that even if it ever did, the impact would not be anything significant. Recently however, the company has had to face the exact same challenge. This was when one Thomas Eric Duncan entered the country while infected with the virus. According to Goodman, the director has been ignoring the economic aspects of the case.  Goodman argues that those who have the capacity of paying for a plane ticket to the US have likelihood of doing so in their own best interest. The situation being out of hand in West Africa, people can pay their tickets to get better attention in the US or to avoid contracting the disease.

Goodman further suggests a few methods the US can stem the flow of such people. He suggests that incentives should be created in West Africa to ensure that to ensure that it becomes more attractive to stay in their own countries while at the same time making coming to the US more difficult. This will prevent people from getting into the country. The government’s taking action against the disease may impact the disease at least in the long-term. The government has however not done enough to fight the disease. The matter should be at the center of the government’s priorities.

Goodman also attempts to determine who is to blame. First, he cites that there have been externalities in the situation. In a situation where Duncan had only signed his contract with the airline company, he has risked the lives of other people as well. Second, there was the issue of market failure. The market failed to resolve the problem of Ebola. Supposedly, market failure arises when arises when the right people to resolve a problem lack self interest in an issue. Thirdly, there was government failure. The persistence of the Ebola problem is a depiction of government failure. It arises when political systems fail to make the issue in question someone’s personal interest.

Despite the warning by the CDC in 2008, the government has failed to create research centers around the world that deal with the issue of Ebola. In fact, the CDC has not been able to create any centers in West Africa which is the region that is hardest hit by Ebola. Goodman (2014) also claims that the economies of hospital safety do not allow for hospitals to invest more into safety. He suggests that a series of changes should be adopted to increase hospital safety.

Self-interest theory states that individuals will first strive to achieve what is more beneficial to them. The theory of self-interest assumes that people have no respect for other people’s interests whatsoever as long as those interests do not complement their own (Fong, 2001). The view that individuals behave from self-interest is old. It been accepted for a long in view in the research of psychology and in a good deal of Western thought. One of the seventeenth century rationalists, Thomas Hobbes, accepted that people were constantly driven by self-interest. At one time Hobbes was seen offering cash to a poor person. At the point when inquired as to why, he clarified that he was attempting to soothe his own particular distress at seeing the beggar suffering.

Yet in the event that truly individuals dependably act from selfish intentions, then it is hard to discuss morals. To begin with, morals as customarily considered should override self-interest: on the off chance that we have an ethical commitment to do something, we should do it actually when it is not to our greatest advantage to do so (Fong, 2001). It bodes well, on the other hand, to advise individuals that they should act in spite of self-interest on the off chance that they can act just as far as self-interest. In addition, a critical customary component in moral choice making is an unprejudiced thought of other people’s interests. The ethical perspective goes past self-interest to a viewpoint that considers everybody’s interests. Morals, then, accept that self-interest cannot be the premise for all human conduct, albeit a few rationalists, e.g., Hobbes, have attempted to build morals in light of self-interest. Their deliberations, be that as it may, have not been generally acknowledged. While pride may be a solid spark of human conduct, morals customarily expect that individuals are additionally equipped for acting from a sympathy toward others that is not gotten from sympathy toward their own particular welfare (Miller, 1999).

One test to the Hobbesian perspective of individuals originates from recent studies in brain science by Dr. Bateson. Bateson and his associates at the University of Kansas have performed various analyses to look at how individuals react to other people in need. He estimated that if individuals were persuaded to help other people just out of egotism, for example, to ease their own particular misery, they would help just when aiding was the most straightforward approach to achieve this objective (Fong, 2001). On the off chance that they could undoubtedly get away from the circumstances and accordingly get away from whatever was creating them trouble, they would do that. By difference, if individuals were propelled to assist of an authentic sympathy toward an alternate in need, their definitive objective would be to lessen alternate’s trouble, which could just be fulfilled by helping the individual, whether different methods for lessening their inconvenience were accessible.

Through an arrangement of trials, Bateson established that when people experienced somebody in need, they ordinarily reported encountering two unique sorts of feelings: individual trouble (caution, stress, or melancholy) or compassion (sensitivity, empathy, or delicacy) (Friend & Lang, 1988). While subjects encountering both of the feelings helped the individual in need, the underlying inspirations contrasted as per which feeling was available. At the point when departure was made simple, 67% of subjects reporting sentiments of trouble got away as opposed to made a difference. In any case, just 17% of the participants testifying sentiments of compassion got away from; the a bigger part of them stayed to help the individual in need, despite the fact that they could have effortlessly gotten away (Fong, 2001). Emotions of sympathy, Bateson cases, seem to stir a really charitable inspiration to assist that is not gotten from self-interest, a discovering in spite of the Hobbesian perspective. The intentions, which lie behind our practices, are regularly varied and complicated. However, studies suggest that these are among the difficulties to the opinion that getting it done, we are not for ourselves. Rather, getting it done, we might just be out for others.

According to this theory, it is unlikely that people would strive to eliminate Ebola for any other reason other than self-interest. There are a variety of things that can be done to either resolve the situation for good or minimize the risk of the US population form contracting the virus. In general, all attempts at eliminating the problem should be two-fold. First, there are those that seek to identify options for treatment of Ebola. Second, other efforts should be focused on lowering the risk of spreading the disease to the American population.

The recommendations made by Goodman (2014) are valid. Two things can be done to discourage people from moving into the US on self-interest basis and risking the lives of the people. First, people should be given incentives that motivate them to stay in their own countries. The following methods can be used to incentivize this.

• The US can send aid to those countries that are affected. This will make those who are likely to be affected to await help in their own countries. They will not see any need to move to another country for medication
• The US can hike the fares to a rate that will make it unreasonable to go to come to the US on the basis of safety. While this will lower the inflow, it cannot be relied upon to completely eliminate the problem. Regardless of the price that will be set, there is always going to be someone who can afford and who is willing to escape their own country at any cost.
• The US can require expensive and time consuming screening from those who will want to travel to the US. This way, people may find the trouble on the excess and prefer to stay in their country.
• The US can also create travel bans for people from the affected countries. The bans can be put on one degree or the other. This will help to lower the risk of getting the disease spread to the country.

On the other hand, it may require that the government changes the nature of incentives that exist in travelling to the US. This can be done by ensuring that those who put the lives of other people at risk are highly penalized. If the government declares the intention of taking action against those people who risk the lives of other people, people will prefer to stay in their own countries or get help elsewhere. This strategy is likely to be more effective that any of the others. A set of the others may however be more reasonable.

The methods selected are not going to be without consequence. The government may find it difficult dealing with human rights groups. It may appear unethical for the government to ban people from travelling on the basis of a disease like Ebola. The process of acting to make the bans effective may also take time. Looking at this in terms of economics, the human rights groups may actually push the government on the basis of someone’s self-interest. If the leaders of the human rights groups foresee the possibility of obtaining funding from certain people to get oppose the government’s decisions, then they may go ahead and oppose the move by the government strongly. Alternatively, the media attention they are likely to obtain from their activity may be good for business. This may fuel their fight against the government and thereby probably mount strong opposition on such moves.

Something that Goodman (2014) fails to see is the possibility of incentivizing research for and actually discoveries of a cure. The government can require research companies to research on a cure for the disease. The government can encourage groups to research on the disease. The major incentive should however not be placed on the research in terms of funding. This may not put sufficient pressure on such groups to obtain a good cure. Instead, the groups should be required to obtain a cure and getting funding for the production. This way, on the basis of self-interest, the research companies will put more effort towards the research.

In conclusion, the article by Goodman (2014) highlights the issue of Ebola. Ebola has been an issue of concern for over 10 years. The Obama government had been informed of the need to establish research centers in the country and abroad to research on Ebola. While CDC intended to create 18 research centers in 2008, only 10 have been created. Furthermore, none of these centers is in the West African countries. For this reason, the there is a need for the company to act. Goodman (2014) feels that the government has failed in incentivizing the issue on all levels. First, the government should create incentives both to keep people in their own countries and second, to find proper medication for the virus. The concept of self-interest is highly integrated into the idea. First, people are likely to find ways to get into the US because they believe they are going to get better care in the US. In the process, they are going to expose people to the risk of getting infected. A good case is the case of Duncan. Duncan got into the US and in the process infected a few people including some nurses. Second, for the sake of profits, airline companies are going to facilitate travelling into the US. Thirdly, proper research has not picked off. The reason is because the process has not been incentivized and has not been made anyone’s best interest to complete the research. If these issues are corrected, the government could lower the risk of its citizens being infected substantially.

References

Fong, C. (2001). Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution. Journal Of Public Economics, 82(2), 225–246.

Friend, I., & Lang, L. (1988). An Empirical Test of the Impact of Managerial Self-interest on Corporate Capital Structure. The Journal Of Finance, 43(2), 271–281.

Goodman, J. (2014). What Economics Can Teach Us About Ebola. Forbes. Retrieved 23 October 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/10/17/what-economics-can-teach-us-about-ebola/

Locsin, R. C., Barnard, A. A., Matua, A. G., & Bongomin, B. B. (2003). Surviving Ebola: understanding experience through artistic expression. International Nursing Review, 50(3), 156-166. doi:10.1046/j.1466-7657.2003.00194.x

Miller, D. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053.