Commentary on the economy, the markets, and business

Would You Charge 75 Cents To Save A Child?

The New York Times has an extraordinary story today about getting mosquito nets to the poor. It's billed as science section story, but it's an instructive economic story too.

Mosquito nets treated with DDT or other insecticides are a key line of defense against malaria in poor countries. They cost, according to Reuben Kyama and Donald G. McNeil's story is about $5 to $7 wholesale, and they can save countless lives in malarial regions. The story is about two approaches to getting these nets to the poor. One is just giving them away. The other is distributing them through a network of local entrepreneurs who will sell them at a minimal price--as low as $1 or 50 cents. The second approach, social marketing, is supposed to help distribute the nets widely and create an opportunity for local small businesses as well.

Guess which approach works better?

Sorry. That was a trick question. In blogs like this, it's always the clever social engineering approach that works better. Well, in this case it doesn't. Here's the story's comparison of the two approaches in one village:

Under social marketing, Dr. Olumese said, the “richest of the poor” had 38 percent coverage, while the “poorest of the poor” — like Maendeleo's rice farmers — had only 15 percent. After the handouts, they were about equal. Deaths of children dropped 44 percent. It also turned out to be cheaper, Dr. Olumese said. With consultant fees, transportation, advertising and shipping, social marketing added about $10 to the cost of each net beyond the $5 to $7 that Danish or Japanese makers charged. But even with payments to volunteers, the added cost of free distribution was only about $1.25 per net.

Got that? The costs of the creating a "social marketing" program and selling the nets turn out to be a lot bigger than just giving them away for free. Sufficiently big to cost lives.

There's a second economic point in the story, worth thinking about, too. The "social marketing" program subsidized the cost of the nets, and let the poor buy it for tiny sums, just about 75 cents. Almost free. The idea that charging a little bit is better than charging nothing is one you see thrown around a lot, like when people talk about "token" five dollar insurance co-payments to discourage un-necessary doctors' visits. 75 cents for a mosquito net that can save a life, a few bucks for an insurance co-payment. Surely some costs are so low that anybody could afford them if they really needed to?

Or maybe not.

  • Print
  • Comment
Comments (7)
Post a Comment »
  • 1

    It might just be me, but I find this post incredibly sad. 75 Cents to save a life. Think how easy it is to stop one of the largest killers this world has ever seen.

    And that makes the comments on your last post even worse. I wonder what truly humane person supports the use billions of dollars into stopping carbon emmisions when we can save many more lives at such a low cost. THIS is what congress should be debating- not this drivel about accusing radio hosts and political websites.

  • 2

    It might just be me, but I find this post incredibly sad. 75 Cents to save a life. Think how easy it is to stop one of the largest killers this world has ever seen.

    And that makes the comments on your last post even worse. I wonder what truly humane person supports the use billions of dollars into stopping carbon emmisions when we can save many more lives at such a low cost. THIS is what congress should be debating- not this drivel about accusing radio hosts and political websites.

  • 3

    It might just be me, but I find this post incredibly sad. 75 Cents to save a life. Think how easy it is to stop one of the largest killers this world has ever seen.

    And that makes the comments on your last post even worse. I wonder what truly humane person supports the use billions of dollars into stopping carbon emmisions when we can save many more lives at such a low cost. THIS is what congress should be debating- not this drivel about accusing radio hosts and political websites.

  • 4

    We can save all of these children's lives by declaring October the "Save African Kids from Malaria" month. No need to buy pink stuff from Gucci or Gap, just send in 1 dollar to buy mosquito nets and help bring drinking water to the poor in Africa.

    I think Americans have marched enough for breast cancer research and send in enough money to Jerry Lewis Labor Day telethon. Breast cancer and Muscular Dystrophy would get cures, eventually; weather people buy pink Coach handbags, call in on Labor Day or not. The amount of money Jerry Lewis alone collected from his telethons could have save the whole continent's children from malaria, give them drinking water and send them to school. We have got to start educating Americans to what a dollar can really do to change lives.

  • 5

    Truly a great eye opener..
    This just goes to show at what value we, as 'spectators' can contribute and be 'participators'.

    Helping save lives can be done so in many ways, as conveyed in this post, the only aspect challenging is bureaucracy, which is instilled in large renowned charitable organizations.

  • 6

    I live in Africa and see everyday what poverty, illiteracy and disease is doing to my people and as one of the lucky ones I feel that it is my duty to go beyond the mosquito net and educate my peers. By educating Africa, and I do not mean by sending a few dollars to but study material but actually volunteering to teach not only children but adults and empowering them to make a difference in their own lifes and maybe, just maybe, to break the cycles that Africa seems trapped in. I applaud anyone who has made steps to change the reality of poverty, war, disease, corruption actively.

  • 7

    i live in africa too. GO US :)

Add Your Comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Curious Capitalist Daily E-mail

Get e-mail updates from TIME's The Curious Capitalist in your inbox and never miss a day.

Quotes of the Day »

Get & Share
LORI HAAS, whose daughter was wounded in the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, on a new report finding that officials warned their families more than an hour and a half before the rest of the campus and released locked-down students who were later killed