Below is a short article suggesting that Nuclear Peace Bonds be issued to reward a sustained absence of nuclear conflict. Nuclear Peace Bonds are an application of the Social Policy Bond concept:

Rewarding nuclear peace

It’s possible that Russia will have to confront comprehensive defeat in Ukraine, maybe even facing the prospect of losing Crimea. How likely is Putin going to say ‘OK, it’s a fair cop, we lost fairly and squarely, it’s all over.’ and refrain from launching ‘tactical’ nuclear devices to change the course of his war? It could happen; we might get lucky, and we might also get lucky when other nuclear-armed powers throw their weight around. But do we really want to gamble on it? Once any one of these countries breaks that taboo, how long will it be before governments begin to see nuclear weapons as just like any other weapon, despite the likelihood that they will devastate an already parlous planet? There’s little or nothing that the international community can do to lower that probability. National policymaking systems can work well when the relationships between cause and effect are readily identifiable. But for large-scale, complex, global problems like the risk of nuclear catastrophe we need to encourage investigation of a wide range of possible solutions.

Nuclear Peace Bonds

You may be familiar with Social Impact Bonds (also known as Pay for Success Bonds), designed to reward investors who achieve socially beneficial goals. Bondholders who achieve an improved outcome receive higher returns. They are limited by their lack of tradeability, whereas the Nuclear Peace Bonds that I propose would be tradeable, which greatly enhances their potential. It allows for bondholders to do what they can to achieve the targeted nuclear peace goal, see the market value of their bonds rise, and then sell their bonds to those best able to take the next steps towards the goal. To make a profit, they do not have to hold the bonds for the decades that such a long-term goal would take to achieve.

Nuclear Peace Bonds would be backed by funds be raised from the public or private sector, or both. These bonds would be floated on the open market for whatever price they fetch. They would be redeemable for a fixed sum only when there has been nuclear peace for a sustained period of, say 30 years. This goal, being remote, would mean that the bonds would sell for very little when first offered to the market. So any activity that increases the likelihood of sustained nuclear peace would see an improvement in the bonds' value. Nuclear Peace Bonds would create a protean coalition of bondholders that would have a powerful incentive to co-operate with each other and to research, refine and implement those measures thought to be, at any given time, those most likely to bring about nuclear peace. With such a big, remote objective, no single approach will work. A Nuclear Peace Bond regime would stimulate a wide range of diverse, adaptive approaches to the threat of nuclear catastrophe. All bondholders’ initiatives would be in service of the one over-arching goal: a sustained period of nuclear peace. The secondary market for the bonds would ensure that, at all times, the bonds would be in the hands of those who believe they can help achieve the goal most efficiently. Inefficient operators, or those who had done their bit, would sell their bonds to more efficient operators, to whom they would be worth more. Unlike some other global problems, the Nuclear Peace Bonds would have a clear and verifiable metric, such as avoidance for 30 years of a military nuclear explosion that kills more than 100 people within 24 hours.

Incentives

Currently, there's a jarring mismatch between on the one hand the fears of, and risks to, almost everyone on Earth from nuclear conflict and on the other, the efforts devoted to mitigating them. A shift in resources away from, for example, ingenious ways of exploiting financial markets or selling dog-food, would benefit all of us. But our current policymaking system doesn't encourage such a re-orientation of priorities. Incentives now are for those few who have acquired power – including psychopaths - to do whatever they can to retain it. The wish of the billions of people who don’t want to live in a world of nuclear conflict is too diffuse to prevail. Of course, there are many hard-working employees of existing organisations who are trying to achieve peace. But – let’s be frank – they are paid for turning up at the office and putting in the hours, rather than success.

A Nuclear Peace Bond regime would reward those who achieve peace, whoever they are and however they do so. It’s an admittedly unconventional approach. But the conventional approach has brought us to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. The taboo against threatening the use of nuclear weapons has been broken. It now appears inevitable that, unless we rebalance the incentives, the taboo against their use will also be broken. It’s now time to encourage and reward diverse, adaptive and successful ways of dealing with the looming nuclear threat.

© Ronnie Horesh

Time to reward health outcomes

Given the widespread, and justifiable, distrust of pharmaceutical companies, it would seem that this is the time to move towards rewarding those who achieve favourable health outcomes, rather than those who merely engage in activities purporting to deliver those outcomes. Those currently employed in healthcare are reacting rationally to the incentives on offer, to the detriment of our physical and mental health. And those incentives encourage over-screening and over-treatment, and the neglect of commercially nonnviable preventive interventions. As the British Medical Association put it:

Despite the clear acknowledgement across the UK of the need to prioritise ill-health prevention and public health activities, the data analysed in this briefing show this is not matched by funding commitments. Funding for ill-health prevention and public health in the UK (pdf), British Medical Association, 2017

It's the same, or worse, in the US:

Almost 1.3 million people went to U.S. emergency rooms due to adverse drug effects in 2014, and about 124,000 people died from those events. [R]research suggests that up to half of those events were preventable. ... An estimated $200 billion per year is spent in the U.S. on the unnecessary and improper use of medication, for the drugs themselves and related medical costs.... Too many meds?, Teresa Carr, 'Consumers Reports', dated September 2017

It's time for a new approach. My suggestion is that rather than policymakers' focusing on the means by which they think good health can be achieved, they instead focus on targets for good physical and mental health, and provide incentives for people to achieve those targets. The Social Policy Bond concept, applied to health, would do this, and more: it would inject the market's incentives and efficiencies into all the processes necessary to improve a nation's health. Health Bonds would channel our scarce resources into the most efficient means of improving our health, including those currently neglected or not even considered by our current healthcare bodies, most of which have little incentive or capacity to consider broad health outcomes that fall outside their increasingly specialised remit.

Health Bonds wouldn't stipulate how our health goals shall be achieved, nor who shall achieve them. This allows a broader approach. For example: our current compartmentalised accountancy-driven policy approach would not take into consideration the adverse health impacts of subsidising advanced courses for young drivers of motorbikes or cars. But holders of Health Bonds would look at such measures, investigate their possible health impacts, and make an informed decision as to whether any improvement they might bring to the nation's health is worthwhile, compared to other possible interventions.