Protocolbot
d19a75ace4
All 100 seed YAML files now have: - Filenames that match their id field - IDs that are slugs of their titles - No cultural identifiers in titles or IDs 70 files renamed. e.g. quaker-meeting-for-worship.yaml -> meeting-for-worship.yaml, moroccan-jmaa-village.yaml -> jmaa-village-assembly.yaml, japanese-hansei.yaml -> hansei-reflection.yaml
45 lines
1.9 KiB
YAML
45 lines
1.9 KiB
YAML
id: copenhagen-consensus-expert-prioritisation
|
|
title: Copenhagen Consensus Expert Prioritisation
|
|
description: >-
|
|
A method where a panel of economists prioritises global challenges by
|
|
cost-benefit analysis, used by the Copenhagen Consensus Center founded
|
|
by Bjorn Lomborg. Combines expert panels with economic evaluation to
|
|
direct attention to the most effective interventions.
|
|
source: Copenhagen Consensus Center
|
|
source_url: https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
|
|
tags: [prioritisation, experts, cost-benefit, global, policy]
|
|
forked_from: null
|
|
image: null
|
|
steps:
|
|
- headline: Commission challenge papers
|
|
description: >-
|
|
For each challenge, an expert is commissioned to write a paper
|
|
assessing interventions and their cost-benefit ratios, with
|
|
transparent methodology.
|
|
- headline: Expert panel deliberates
|
|
description: >-
|
|
A panel of distinguished economists reads the papers, questions the
|
|
authors, and deliberates on the relative value of interventions
|
|
across challenges.
|
|
- headline: Rank by return
|
|
description: >-
|
|
The panel ranks interventions by their benefit-cost ratio, producing
|
|
a list that directs attention and resources to the highest-return
|
|
options.
|
|
- headline: Publish with dissent
|
|
description: >-
|
|
The rankings are published with the panel's reasoning and any
|
|
dissenting notes, so the basis is transparent and open to challenge.
|
|
- headline: Invite response
|
|
description: >-
|
|
The wider community of experts and the public are invited to respond,
|
|
with the possibility of revisiting rankings in light of new
|
|
evidence.
|
|
outcome: >-
|
|
A transparent prioritisation of interventions, based on cost-benefit
|
|
analysis and expert deliberation, published with reasoning for
|
|
scrutiny.
|
|
practice: >-
|
|
The cost-benefit frame has limits — it can miss values not easily
|
|
monetised. Use it as one input, not as the answer. Transparency of
|
|
method is what makes it challengeable. |