Economic Policies to Address the Environmental Consequences of Global Reuse

This paper summarizes a two-country model that solves for optimal tax rates to achieve efficiency in an economy with international trade in used consumer electronics. If only the developed nation can tax the disposal of e-waste, then the global Pareto Optimum can be obtained by either imposing an import tariff on used consumer electronics or subsidizing the return of e-waste for disposal in the developed country. The global Pareto Optimum can also be obtained by reducing the disposal tax in the developed country to a level below the external marginal cost of disposal should no other policy option be available.

Global Reuse and Optimal Waste Policy

Electronic waste generated from the consumption of durable goods in developed countries is often exported to underdeveloped countries for reuse, recycling and disposal with unfortunate environmental consequences. The lack of efficient disposal policies within developing nations coupled with global free trade agreements make it difficult for consumers to internalize these costs. This paper develops a two-country model, one economically developed and the other underdeveloped, to solve for optimal tax policies necessary to achieve the efficient allocation of economic resources in an economy with a durable good available for global reuse without policy measures in the underdeveloped country. A tax in the developed country on purchases of the new durable good combined with a waste tax set below the domestic external cost of disposal is sufficient for global efficiency. The implication of allowing free global trade in electronic waste is also examined, where optimal policy resembles a global deposit-refund system.

A Validity Study of the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire

The short, portable mental status questionnaire (SPMSQ) developed by Pfeiffer has several advantages over previous short instruments designed to assess the intellectual functioning of older adults. It is based upon data from both institutionalized and community-dwelling elderly. Although Pfeiffer a four-group classification, he used to groups in his initial validation study: (a) intact/mildly impaired, and (b) moderately/severely impaired. The present study compared clinicians' ratings with those based upon the SPMSQ scores, and examined the validity of the four-group classification. The sample included 181 subjects from seven intermediate care facilities and nine home-care agencies. All were assessed by the OARS questionnaire, which includes the SPMSQ Three discriminant analyses were performed with three different criteria, for two-group, three-group, and four-group models. Results indicated that the two-group model (intact/mildly impaired and moderately/severely impaired) permitted significant discrimination. The four-group model, however, gave less distinct results. In particular, patients who were mildly intellectually impaired could not be clearly distinguished from those who were intact and from those who were moderately impaired. The three-group model (minimally, moderately, severely impaired) seemed to offer the best compromise between the gross dichotomy of the original two-model system and the less accurate four category system.