The Permanent Income Hypothesis: A Test on Czech Privatisation

Since the late eighties, economists have been regarding the transition from command to market economies in Central and Eastern Europe with intense interest. In addition to studying the transition per se, they have begun using the region as a testing ground on which to investigate the validity of certain classic economic propositions. In his research, comprising three articles written in English and totalling 40 pages, Mr. Hanousek uses the so-called "Czech national experiment" (voucher privatisation scheme) to test the permanent income hypothesis (PIH). He took as his inspiration Kreinin's recommendation: "Since data concerning the behaviour of windfall income recipients is relatively scanty, and since such data can constitute an important test of the permanent income hypothesis, it is of interest to bring to bear on the hypothesis whatever information is available". Mr. Hanousek argues that, since the transfer of property to Czech citizens from 1992 to 1994 through the voucher scheme was not anticipated, it can be regarded as windfall income. The average size of the windfall was more than three month's salary and over 60 percent of the Czech population received this unexpected income. Furthermore, there are other reasons for conducting such an analysis in the Czech Republic. Firstly, the privatisation process took place quickly. Secondly, both the economy and consumer behaviour have been very stable. Thirdly, out of a total population of 10 million Czech citizens, an astonishing 6 million, that is, virtually every household, participated in the scheme. Thus Czech voucher privatisation provides a sample for testing the PIH almost equivalent to a full population, thus avoiding problems with the distribution of windfalls. Compare this, for instance with the fact that only 4% of the Israeli urban population received personal restitution from Germany, while the number of veterans who received the National Service Life Insurance Dividends amounted to less than 9% of the US population and were concentrated in certain age groups. But to begin with, Mr. Hanousek considers the question of whether the public percieves the transfer from the state to individual as an increase in net wealth. It can be argued that the state is only divesting itself of assets that would otherwise provide a future source of transfers. According to this argument, assigning these assets to individuals creates an offsetting change in the present value of potential future transfers so that individuals are no better off after the transfer. Mr. Hanousek disagrees with this approach. He points out that a change in the ownership of inefficient state-owned enterprises should lead to higher efficiency, which alone increases the value of enterprises and creates a windfall increase in citizens' portfolios. More importantly, the state and individuals had very different preferences during the transition. Despite government propaganda, it is doubtful that citizens of former communist countries viewed government-owned enterprises as being operated in the citizens' best interest. Moreover, it is unlikely that the public fully comprehended the sophisticated links between the state budget, state-owned enterprises, and transfers to individuals. Finally, the transfers were not equal across the population. Mr. Hanousek conducted a survey on 1263 individuals, dividing them into four monthly earnings categories. After determining whether the respondent had participated in the voucher process, he asked those who had how much of what they received from voucher privatisation had been (a) spent on goods and services, (b) invested elsewhere, (c) transferred to newly emerging pension funds, (d) given to a family member, and (e) retained in their original form as an investment. Both the mean and the variance of the windfall rise with income. He obtained similar results with respect to education, where the mean (median) windfall for those with a basic school education was 13,600 Czech Crowns (CZK), a figure that increased to 15,000 CZK for those with a high school education without exams, 19,900 CZK for high school graduates with exams, and 24,600 CZK for university graduates. Mr. Hanousek concludes that it can be argued that higher income (and better educated) groups allocated their vouchers or timed the disposition of their shares better. He turns next to an analysis of how respondents reported using their windfalls. The key result is that only a relatively small number of individuals reported spending on goods. Overall, the results provide strong support for the permanent income hypothesis, the only apparent deviation being the fact that both men and women aged 26 to 35 apparently consume more than they should if the windfall were annuitised. This finding is still fully consistent with the PIH, however, if this group is at a stage in their life-cycle where, without the windfall, they would be borrowing to finance consumption associated with family formation etc. Indeed, the PIH predicts that individuals who would otherwise borrow to finance consumption would consume the windfall up to the level equal to the annuitised fraction of the increase in lifetime income plus the full amount of the previously planned borrowing for consumption. Greater consumption would then be financed, not from investing the windfall, but from avoidance of future repayment obligations for debts that would have been incurred without the windfall.

Uranium mining industry views on ICRP statement on radon

In 2009, the International Commission on Radiological Protection issued a statement on radon which stated that the dose conversion factor for radon progeny would likely double, and the calculation of risk from radon should move to a dosimetric approach, rather than the longstanding epidemiological approach. Through the World Nuclear Association, whose members represent over 90% of the world's uranium production, industry has been examining this issue with a goal of offering expertise and knowledge to assist with the practical implementation of these evolutionary changes to evaluating the risk from radon progeny. Industry supports the continuing use of the most current epidemiological data as a basis for risk calculation, but believes that further examination of these results is needed to better understand the level of conservatism in the potential epidemiological-based risk models. With regard to adoption of the dosimetric approach, industry believes that further work is needed before this is a practical option. In particular, this work should include a clear demonstration of the validation of the dosimetric model which includes how smoking is handled, the establishment of a practical measurement protocol, and the collection of relevant data for modern workplaces. Industry is actively working to address the latter two items.

Mortality of HIV-1-infected patients in the first year of antiretroviral therapy: comparison between low-income and high-income countries

BACKGROUND: Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is being scaled up in developing countries. We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes during the first year of HAART between HIV-1-infected patients in low-income and high-income settings. METHODS: 18 HAART programmes in Africa, Asia, and South America (low-income settings) and 12 HIV cohort studies from Europe and North America (high-income settings) provided data for 4810 and 22,217, respectively, treatment-naive adult patients starting HAART. All patients from high-income settings and 2725 (57%) patients from low-income settings were actively followed-up and included in survival analyses. FINDINGS: Compared with high-income countries, patients starting HAART in low-income settings had lower CD4 cell counts (median 108 cells per muL vs 234 cells per muL), were more likely to be female (51%vs 25%), and more likely to start treatment with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) (70%vs 23%). At 6 months, the median number of CD4 cells gained (106 cells per muL vs 103 cells per muL) and the percentage of patients reaching HIV-1 RNA levels lower than 500 copies/mL (76%vs 77%) were similar. Mortality was higher in low-income settings (124 deaths during 2236 person-years of follow-up) than in high-income settings (414 deaths during 20,532 person-years). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of mortality comparing low-income with high-income settings fell from 4.3 (95% CI 1.6-11.8) during the first month to 1.5 (0.7-3.0) during months 7-12. The provision of treatment free of charge in low-income settings was associated with lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.23; 95% CI 0.08-0.61). INTERPRETATION: Patients starting HAART in resource-poor settings have increased mortality rates in the first months on therapy, compared with those in developed countries. Timely diagnosis and assessment of treatment eligibility, coupled with free provision of HAART, might reduce this excess mortality.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed "Explanation and Elaboration" document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Tuberculosis after initiation of antiretroviral therapy in low-income and high-income countries

We examined the incidence of and risk factors for tuberculosis during the first year of highly active antiretroviral therapy in low-income (4540 patients) and high-income (22,217 patients) countries. Although incidence was much higher in low-income countries, the reduction in the incidence of tuberculosis associated with highly active antiretroviral therapy was similar: the rate ratio for months 7-12 versus months 1-3 was 0.48 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.64) in low-income countries and 0.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.50) in high-income countries. A low CD4 cell count at the start of therapy was the most important risk factor in both settings.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Discordant responses to potent antiretroviral treatment in previously naive HIV-1-infected adults initiating treatment in resource-constrained countries: the antiretroviral therapy in low-income countries (ART-LINC) collaboration

OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency of and risk factors for discordant responses at 6 months on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in previously treatment-naive HIV patients from resource-limited countries. METHODS: The Antiretroviral Therapy in Low-Income Countries Collaboration is a network of clinics providing care and treatment to HIV-infected patients in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Patients who initiated therapy between 1996 and 2004, were aged 16 years or older, and had a baseline CD4 cell count were included in this analysis. Responses were defined based on plasma viral load (PVL) and CD4 cell count at 6 months as complete virologic and immunologic (VR(+)IR(+)), virologic only (VR(+)IR(-)), immunologic only (VR(-)IR(+)), and nonresponse (VR(-)IR(-)). Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the association between therapy responses and clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS: Of the 3111 patients eligible for analysis, 1914 had available information at 6 months of therapy: 1074 (56.1%) were VR(+)IR(+), 364 (19.0%) were VR(+)IR(-), 283 (14.8%) were (VR(-)IR(+)), and 193 (10.1%) were VR(-)IR(-). OF THE 3111 patients eligible for analysis, 1914 had available information at 6 months of therapy: 1074 (56.1%) were VRIR, 364 (19.0%) were VRIR, 283 (14.8%) were (VRIR), and 193 (10.1%) were VRIR. Compared with complete responders, virologic-only responders were older, had a higher baseline CD4 cell count, had a lower baseline PVL, and were more likely to have received a nonstandard HAART regimen; immunologic-only responders were younger, had a lower baseline CD4 cell count, had a higher baseline PVL, and were more likely to have received a protease inhibitor-based regimen. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of and risk factors for discordant responses were comparable to those observed in developed countries. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the long-term impact of discordant responses on mortality in these resource-limited settings.