EU Commission participation in the Troika mission: is there a European Union price to pay?

The article is intended to debate two questions regarding the involvement of the Commission in the Troika's action: firstly, considering the nature of financial assistance programs, it aims to discuss the effect of the Commission's participation in Troika negotiations on the balance of power of the EU institutions; and secondly, the article raises the issue of the Commission's liability for the results achieved by the financial assistance program, taking into account the extent of the conditions imposed, as well as the intensity of scrutiny by the Troika.

El concepto de willingness-to-pay en tela de juicio

La idoneidad del concepto de willingness to pay (disponibilidad a pagar) es revisado en las evaluaciones económicas que se realizan en el campo de la salud. Por un lado, existe dentro de la literatura económica un número importante de investigadores que señalan los múltiples problemas metodológicos que entrañan las estimaciones de willingness to pay. Por otro lado, aún el debate teórico-conceptual acerca de la agregación de las preferencias individuales dentro de una demanda agregada no ésta del todo resuelto. Sin embargo, durante los últimos 20 años la estimación de la disponibilidad a pagar dentro de las investigaciones económicas ha aumentado de forma significativa, siendo en muchos casos uno de los principales factores de la toma de decisión en políticas de salud. Plantease alguna de las limitaciones de esta técnica, así como el posible efecto distorsionador que podría tener sobre las evaluaciones económicas que se realizan en el área de la economía de la salud.

What can and should be legalized in ecological restoration?

After listing the five key elements of ecological restoration, ecology, economics, social values, cultural values, and politics, I celebrate the fact that in Brazil there is legislation on how to perform ecological restoration of degraded tropical forests, as well as an ongoing dialogue among legislators and scientists about this legislation, and also a lively debate among scientists as the best way forward, referring to articles by Brancalion et al. (2010) and Durigan et al. (2010) in this issue of Revista Árvore. Legislators elsewhere, especially megadiversity countries, should take note. I do not take sides in the debate; I think both groups of authors make very good points. Instead I call on the scientists and legislators concerned with restoration to ponder five strategic tools: A. Start with clear concepts. B. Decide where you want to go and why. C. Negotiate who should benefit & how, and who should pay, how, & why. D. Work out how an honest cost-benefit analysis of restoration would look, regardless of the biome in which you are working. Finally, figure out how to make the restoration immediately attractive for private landowners. Otherwise, they will not cooperate as fully as they could or should, and restoration efforts will not achieve its full potential.