What users think about the differences between caffeine and illicit,prescription stimulants for cognitive enhancement

Pharmacological cognitive enhancement (CE) is a topic of increasing public awareness. In the scientific literature on studentrnuse of CE as a study aid for academic performance enhancement, there are high prevalence rates regarding the use ofrncaffeinated substances (coffee, caffeinated drinks, caffeine tablets) but remarkably lower prevalence rates regarding the usernof illicit/prescription stimulants such as amphetamines or methylphenidate. While the literature considers the reasons andrnmechanisms for these different prevalence rates from a theoretical standpoint, it lacks empirical data to account for healthyrnstudents who use both, caffeine and illicit/prescription stimulants, exclusively for the purpose of CE. Therefore, wernextensively interviewed a sample of 18 healthy university students reporting non-medical use of caffeine as well as illicit/rnprescription stimulants for the purpose of CE in a face-to-face setting about their opinions regarding differences in generalrnand morally-relevant differences between caffeine and stimulant use for CE. 44% of all participants answered that there is arngeneral difference between the use of caffeine and illicit/prescription stimulants for CE, 28% did not differentiate, 28% couldrnnot decide. Furthermore, 39% stated that there is a moral difference, 56% answered that there is no moral difference andrnone participant was not able to comment on moral aspects. Participants came to their judgements by applying threerndimensions: medical, ethical and legal. Weighing the medical, ethical and legal aspects corresponded to the students’rnindividual preferences of substances used for CE. However, their views only partly depicted evidence-based medical aspectsrnand the ethical issues involved. This result shows the need for well-directed and differentiated information to prevent thernpotentially harmful use of illicit or prescription stimulants for CE.

A multi-regional view on aging societies accounting for the existence of non-tradable goods

This thesis assesses the question, whether accounting for non-tradable goods sectors in a calibrated Auerbach-Kotlikoff multi-regional overlapping-generations-model significantly affects this model’s results when simulating the economic impact of demographic change. Non-tradable goods constitute a major part of up to 80 percent of GDP of modern economies. At the same time, multi-regional overlapping-generations-models presented by literature on demographic change so far ignored their existence and counterfactually assumed perfect tradability between model regions. Moreover, this thesis introduces the assumption of an increasing preference share for non-tradable goods of old generations. This fact-based as-sumption is also not part of models in relevant literature. rnThese obvious simplifications of common models vis-à-vis reality notwithstanding, this thesis concludes that differences in results between a model featuring non-tradable goods and a common model with perfect tradability are very small. In other words, the common simplifi-cation of ignoring non-tradable goods is unlikely to lead to significant distortions in model results. rnIn order to ensure that differences in results between the ‘new’ model, featuring both non-tradable and tradable goods, and the common model solely reflect deviations due to the more realistic structure of the ‘new’ model, both models are calibrated to match exactly the same benchmark data and thus do not show deviations in their respective baseline steady states.rnA variation analysis performed in this thesis suggests that differences between the common model and a model with non-tradable goods can theoretically be large, but only if the bench-mark tradable goods sector is assumed to be unrealistically small.rnFinally, this thesis analyzes potential real exchange rate effects of demographic change, which could occur due to regional price differences of non-tradable goods. However, results show that shifts in real exchange rate based on these price differences are negligible.rn