Tyler Cowen has a nice discussion of the reactions to the Copenhagen Consensus that were published in the Winter 2007 issue of the Journal of Economic Literature. Douglass North, Vernon Smith and Thomas Schelling were part of the team of researchers that developed the priorities.
Which side do you come down on? (A) The Copenhagen Consensus is a step forward by reprioritizing our international aid and development activity toward tackling disease like HIV/AIDS over environmental regulations to address Global Warming; (B) The Copenhagen Consensus fails to address the practical inability of introducing an effective HIV/AIDS policy that will change behavior to reduce the spread of the disease; (C) The Copehagen Consensus suffers from the same hubris in public policy that Jeff Sachs's grand plans for ending global poverty.
Addendum: John Nye wrote me this morning to make sure that I clarified that the task of the scholars associated with the Copenhagen Consensus was not to come up with new proposals or uses for the $$$, but given the existing set of proposals and the financial constraint, how would you rank the proposals. This closed set problem is different from the open-ended project that is associated with a full comparative institutional analysis of possible policy choices.