Volume 2, Issue 3

The benefits associated with mortality risk reductions are a critical input for the benefit-cost analysis of economically significant federal regulations that affect health and safety. The dominant method of estimating the benefits of reducing mortality risks relies on labor markets to estimate the tradeoffs between workers’ wages and occupational risk. The past literature considers all labor market risks to be equivalent, failing to recognize the inherent heterogeneity in occupational hazards. In this research, heterogeneity in the value of reducing risks is explored within the labor market context. Unique location-specific risk data are developed for over 300 U.S. cities to separately identify the wage premiums for facing two disparate occupational risks: violent assault and motor vehicle accident risks. We find that ignoring the underlying heterogeneity in risks can lead to substantial over/under-statements of the benefits of reducing any one particular risk by up to 350%. As such, caution is urged for benefits transfer exercises that apply estimates of the marginal willingness to pay for reducing labor market accident risks to policies affecting very different risks, such as public safety or environmental risks.

This article explores the combination of laboratory and field experiments in defining a welfare framework and the impact of different regulatory tools on consumer behaviors. First, an overview of strengths and weaknesses raised by the experimental literature show that, for food consumption, lab and field experiments may be complementary to each other. The lab experiment elicits willingness to pay useful for determining per-unit damages based on well-informed, thoughtful preferences, while the field experiment determines purchase/consumption reactions in real contexts. Second, the analytical approach suggests how to combine the results of both lab and field experiments to determine the welfare impact of different regulatory tools such as labels and/or taxes. Third, an empirical application focuses on a lab and a field experiment conducted in France to evaluate the impact of regulation on fish consumption. Estimations for the French tuna market show that a per-unit tax on tuna and/or an advisory policy lead to welfare improvements.

One of the major difficulties in doing benefit-cost analyses of a development project is to estimate a total economic value of the project benefits, which are usually multi-dimensional and include goods and services that are not traded in the market, and challenges also arise in aggregating the values of different benefits, which may not be mutually exclusive. This paper presents an analysis of a non-motorized transport project in Pune, India, which uses the contingent valuation method to estimate the total value of the project benefits across beneficiaries. A sample of the project beneficiaries are presented with a detailed description of the project and then are asked to vote on whether such a project should be undertaken given different specifications of costs to their households. A function of willingness-to-pay for the project is then derived from the survey answers and the key determinants are found to include household income, distance to the project streets, current use of the transportation modes, future use of the project streets, predicted impacts of the project, and level of trust in the government. The total willingness-to-pay of the local residents is found to be smaller than the total cost of an initial design of the project. Heteroskedasticity is also found to present in the willingness-to-pay models.

In the field of health care management, contingent valuation surveys (CV) are used in cost benefit analyses (CBA) to elicit patients’ monetary valuation of program benefits. We considered the empirical situation of blood transfusions (BT) in cancer patients. Before planning such a CBA, we had to make sure that the CV approach could be used in a particularly critical clinical situation to estimate the marginal benefit of changing from hospital BT to home BT. The fact that the CV approach is feasible and acceptable to severely ill patients was not taken for granted a priori.We measured patient’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) for home BT in a sample of 139 patients who received transfusions either at home or in the hospital. After considering patient’s participation to the survey and protest responses, we identified possible determinants of WTP values derived from previous knowledge, then we compared their expected influences to predicted influences resulting from econometric analysis to assess the validity of our results. Participation was high (90%) and few patients gave protest responses. Most patients (65%) had received home care, including 43% BT. The median WTP for home BT was 26.5 € per patient.Good consistency was observed between the expected and predicted influences of possible determinants of WTP. The anchoring bias hypothesis was confirmed. The WTP for home BT increased with previous experience of home care, age, living far from the hospital and low quality of life. Our CV approach is thus a first contribution to the debate on the appropriateness of generalizing access to home BT. However, our results would be worth confirming with a formal cost-benefit analysis.

Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is frequently applied to decisions involving public safety which requires analyzing risk and assessing options to manage risks. Principles and standards may assist analysts, decision-makers, and the public in developing and interpreting such BCAs. Principles and standards at best represent commonly held views among a community of practice. Such views are continually evolving with advances in the field. This paper presents a modularized format towards principles and standards that may assist in focusing discussion and decisions about whether such proposals actually reflect principles and standards within the benefit-cost analysis community of practice. Among topics covered are welfare measures, benefit or cost transfer, and valuing uncertain outcomes.

In this note we discuss how to estimate the social discount rate when banks have market power. Some data from Sweden are used to illustrate the approach. If other investments are crowded out, the implied social discount rate is around 7 percent, i.e. more or less equal to the one suggested by Burgess and Zerbe (2011) for the U.S. but similar to those often used in the EU (3-4 percent) if private consumption is crowded out by the considered investment.

This is a comment on a paper by David F. Burgess and Richard O. Zerbe. It derives a different set of conclusions than the cited authors do from the customary premises underlying benefit-cost analysis. It concludes that capital should be shadow priced, and that the appropriate discount rate to use in benefit-cost analysis is the interest rate of the capital market to which the public sector has access. It proposes that a plausible source of the great divergence in approaches to discounting stems from different answers being given to the question of whether present day consumption has a future consumption opportunity cost.

Two comments in this issue of the Journal address our recent article in Volume 2, Issue 2. The fundamental issue with both comments is that they confuse the financial rate of return with the opportunity cost rate of return and therefore advocate for an inappropriate basis on which to calculate the government discount rate. That is, both comments confuse the financial cost of funds, or the borrowing rate, with the economic opportunity cost of funds. We hope that this exchange advances the subject by reducing confusion.