Economic component

From economic perspective, the objective is to maximize the amount of goods and services and
maximize the resource use efficiency. Economic dimension of the sustainable development strategy is
oriented to accelerate economic growth and get maximum benefit while keeping the stock of capital
constant or increasing. It desires to produce a maximum flow of income by maximizing the efficient use
of resources, consisting of limited natural resources as well as man-made resource and human resource.
The rapid economic growth is desirable, but it will not create heavy burden to the life-supporting system
of the Earth. Core idea is to ensure limited negative environmental impact. This approach demands a
sustainable economic environment to deal with a multidimensional process involving a set of
quantitative and qualitative transformations in organizational and social structures as well as changes in
attitude of people toward environment and resource use. Economic dimensions are the aspects of the
organization that need to be addressed to remain competitive in the market in the long run. The
dimensions include various components such as profit and value, investments, relationship with
investors, innovation, technology, collaboration, knowledge management, and process and product
development.

Analysis. Labor force surveys can be used to measure current health worker remuneration differentials
between different levels of care, specialties, and geographic areas, and the remunerations differentials
that would be necessary to entice health workers to change job locations.

Through a better understanding of the underlying behavior of health workers and those that employ
them, and how they interact in the health labor market, policy makers can more effectively design
health workforce policies. The labor economics paradigm can be an important tool to help address the
many health workforce challenges in developing countries and, ultimately, to improve the health of the
population.

Adequate returns on investment. The hope is that effective public policy on managing production,
distribution, and consumption of common public goods of the types enumerated earlier contribute to
the higher order objectives of good governance.

This discussion of privatization, liberalization, and deregulation proceeds therefore from a framework
that looks at the interfaces of public and private involvement in two critical ways. One refers to the vital
processes of engagement and disengagement of government in opening up the spaces of participation
in the political process. The other concerns attempts by governments to define the regimes of control
over common good resources in the public sphere. In doing so, the discussion will examine the history
and evolution of the concepts, their use in comparative and international perspectives, representative
cases, and implications for the larger goals of public utility, access to services, delivery, efficiency, costs,
rewards, and improvements in the production of public resources already identified as common or
public goods.
problem is standard in applied economics. The methodology is well established; the data for
implementation are severely deficient. An analyst must associate values to the imperfect impact
estimates developed in other disciplines and relate them to flawed estimates of compliance costs. Thus,
the actual estimates are uncertain.

Economics also produces a preference for decentralized decision making. Economists have long
disparaged the presumption of politicians to decide what is preferable for others. Thus, among
economists, the tendency toward detailed instructions that characterizes environmental regulation is
censured as command and control regulation.

The starting point of the argument is that politicians have considerable difficulty determining the proper
overall goals of public policy and great problems determining the degree and nature of response to the
goals. Therefore, if regulation is to occur, governments should adopt systems in which broad goals are
set and the maximum possible flexibility is given with regard to implementation.

In particular, economists suggest two basic approaches: charges for damages or permits to damage. The
underlying principle is that economically pollution control is a commodity whose benefits and cost vary
with the amount of effort exerted. Thus, the standard economic technique of supply and demand
analysis applies. An optimal level of control exists. At that level, the price that the public is willing to pay
for that quantity of control attained has a value equal to the marginal cost of the control. Thus, as with
all commodities, a market-clearing price is associated with the optimum level of control.

This viewpoint simply formalizes realities behind actual regulation. Total control is never attempted
because of the high cost of perfection. Indeed, perfection may be technologically impossible (an infinite
cost). Thus, denunciations of economic analyses as immoral are apparent denials of the realities. What
really seems to be involved is concern that the limits of knowledge will cause less stringent controls than
are justified.

In any case, the key is the association of a price with the market-clearing level of control. With sufficient
information, both the market-clearing level of control and the associated price are knowable. This forms
the basis for the tax and marketable permits basis for regulation. Under the tax system, every polluter is
charged a tax equal to the value of efficient abatement. The permit system instead sets a total limit on
pollution and allocates shares in that limit. In both systems, the affected parties decide how much and in
what way to abate.

The previously noted problems of inadequate information imply that charges, transferable rights, and
command and control all will fail to attain the unknowable efficient level of control. To make matters
worse, the magnitude of the resulting policy defects depends critically on the magnitude of the error in
the policy goals. Therefore, no a priori presumptions are possible about which policy fails least.
Policy Response
Economists commonly favor government policies that narrowly target a market failure that has been
identified. In situations where there is no market failure, such as when well-informed adults freely
choose and accept the consequences of unhealthy eating patterns, many economists say there is no
need for a government policy response.

In addition to the economic perspective on diagnosing market failures, there are other motivations that
strongly influence government policies regarding nutrition and thus are given attention here to help
researchers understand ongoing policy debates.

The authors have considered three economic perspectives on public choice that help to explain why it
has often proven difficult to obtain political backing for apparently common-sense public health
interventions. The health and societal implications of many public health interventions can never be
assessed in their entirety in advance of implementation. Even if they could, however, public health
advocates have often found themselves in conflict with powerful interests groups, and politicians or
bureaucrats who pursue their own objectives. This introduces an important and complex set of
constraints into the priority-setting process, implying that available funds might be spent in particular
areas or on specific programs determined by informational advantages or power structures within
society. In general, such constraints will result in departures from conventional criteria such as cost-
effectiveness rules.

Is it possible to counter those powerful influences? History has plenty of success stories. From the
second half of the nineteenth century, Britain's major cities embarked on a reform of the municipal
social health amenities and social services that resulted in significant improvements in health. Historians
believe that a class-bridging coalition between grass root organizations of the growing urban population,
a new generation of civic leaders with social conscience that originated from the well-off urban elite,
and a strong cadre of public service professionals, notably Medical Officers of Health, secured these
reforms. Similar developments happened in other European countries and the USA.

There are modern day examples of spirited initiatives by governments, government departments, or
community organizations that instigated radical improvements in public health. For example, the
outbreak of the plague in the Indian city of Surat in 1994 led to a decisive reorganization and
introduction of stringent performance management of the civic waste department, named
‘transformation from AC to DC’ – making bureaucrats leave their ‘air conditioned’ offices to the ‘daily
chore’ of direct supervision of waste management on site. The participatory budgeting model
introduced in 1989 in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre was an innovative reform program that
successfully overcame severe inequality in living standards among city residents. Part of the program
was introduction of participatory budgeting; community members now decide how to allocate part of
the public budget. The recent decisive ruling of the Australian government on plain packaging laws for
cigarettes is celebrated as a great success in the fight against cigarette smoking. For decades, the
tobacco industry has successfully prevented such laws, to protect the value of their brands' image,
which they used more or less openly to link the brand with popular
The authors have merely scratched the surface of this under researched area of study. There is great
scope for a much better understanding of decision-making behavior – both in low- and high-income
countries – and a range of hypotheses can be tested by examining the priority-setting process itself and
the resulting patterns of healthcare and public health expenditure. They would not challenge the
desirability of seeking to maximize the health gains of the health system through the use of CEA.
However, health economists have not yet taken advantage of the full range of economic approaches at
their disposal. Only by securing a better understanding of the decision-making process can the impact of
CEA be enhanced. They would argue that this can be achieved by augmenting the understanding of the
political context of priority setting, using a variety of well-established models of political economy.