You’ll never get poor promoting the government line
A bullshit study promoting wowserism has been completely overturned by economists Eric Crampton and Matt Burgess.
Produced by tame economic consultants BERL in order to promote the party line on alcohol, it looks like nothing more than a report whose conclusions were paid for in advance. The report on so called alcohol abuse is over-egged, the results are over-exagerated, and the consultants are clearly overpaid.
As Burgess says, “At one point BERL makes accidental (we think) use of the labour theory of value, which we discuss on page 35. Never a good look when Marxism makes an appearance in your economic analysis.”
You and I paid $135,000 for this study but because of its, shall we say, “unusual methodology and poor execution” it looks to be suitable for nothing more than filling up a landfill – the work of people paid for lying to order.
Here’s Eric and Matt’s polite summary of its errors:
Reported costs of alcohol abuse "grossly exaggerated" according to economists
A widely publicised $135,000 government report on the cost of drug and alcohol abuse has been slammed by two economists, who say the report’s findings are grossly exaggerated.
Economists Eric Crampton and Matt Burgess have released a research paper which examines the report, by Wellington economics consultant Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL), after Law Commission President Sir Geoffrey Palmer cited its findings in support of proposed new regulations on alcohol.
“What we found shocked us. BERL exaggerated costs by 30 times using a bizarre methodology that you won’t find in any economics textbook,” Dr Crampton said.
The BERL report was commissioned in 2008 by the Ministry of Health and ACC, and put the annual social costs of alcohol at $4.79 billion. Crampton and Burgess said the net social costs instead amounted to $146 million – 30 times lower than that calculated in the report.
“BERL has virtually assumed its answer. The majority of the reported social costs rest on two very strange assumptions which BERL has asserted without any reason or evidence,” said Dr Crampton said.
“The report assumes that one in six New Zealand adults drinks because they are irrational; that is, they are incapable of deciding what is good for themselves. BERL further assumes that these individuals receive absolutely no enjoyment, social or economic benefit from any of their drinking,” Dr Crampton said.
“These assumptions allowed BERL to count as a cost to society everything from the cost of alcohol production to the effect of alcohol on unpaid housework. That’s bad economics.”
Among other serious flaws, Dr Crampton said the report’s external peer review was done by the authors of the report’s own methodology, important findings in academic literature that alcohol had health and economic benefits were ignored, BERL did not properly warn readers about the limitations of its methodology, and used language in the report that was frequently misleading.
The BERL study caught the economists’ attention when it was cited by the Law Commission as the basis for supporting proposed new taxes and regulations on alcohol.
“Our research paper is not commissioned work. We’re doing this because we don’t want to see legislative decisions being misguided by bad research. In our view, the Law Commission should give no weight at all to the findings in the BERL report,” Dr Crampton said.