Startseite Wirtschaftswissenschaften The value of a statistical life: some clarifications and puzzles
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

The value of a statistical life: some clarifications and puzzles

  • Cass R. Sunstein EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 19. Juli 2013
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill
Informationen für Autor*innen Erkunden Sie dieses Fachgebiet
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
Aus der Zeitschrift Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis Band 4 Heft 2

Abstract

Many people have wondered why the US government conducts cost-benefit analysis with close reference to the value of a statistical life (VSL). It is helpful to answer that question by reference to the “Easy Cases,” in which those who benefit from regulatory protection must pay for it. In such cases, WTP is usually the right foundation for VSL, because beneficiaries are hardly helped by being forced to pay for regulatory protection that they believe not to be in their interests. In the Easy Cases, arguments from both welfare and autonomy support the use of WTP and VSL (with potentially important qualifications involving imperfect information and behavioral market failures). The analysis is less straightforward in harder cases, in which beneficiaries do not pay for all of the cost of what they receive (and may pay little of that cost). In such cases, arguments from welfare and autonomy might not lead in any clear direction. In the harder cases, regulation might be justified on welfare grounds even if the cost-benefit analysis (based on VSL) suggests that it is not. In principle, a direct inquiry into welfare (the master concept) would be preferable to use of cost-benefit analysis. In the harder cases, distributional considerations might also count in favor of proceeding (as prioritarianism suggests). But at the current time, direct inquiries into welfare consequences and into distributional effects are challenging in practice, and hence regulators should generally rely on cost-benefit analysis, making welfarist adjustments, or adjustments based on distributional considerations, only in compelling cases.

Keywords: cost-benefit analysis; value of a statistical life; willingness to pay
Corresponding author: Cass R. Sunstein, Harvard Law School, Areeda Hall 225, 1563 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
  1. 1

    The empirical analysis of the distributional effects of regulations remains in its early stages, and hence the discussion here is largely theoretical, with occasional references to the incipient empirical literature.

  2. 2

    Of course it is true that under the simple economic model, with perfect competition and full information, we would expect the market to provide these benefits if those affected are willing to pay the costs. The analysis of Easy Case, as of harder ones, depends on an antecedent judgment that there has been some kind of market failure (perhaps including a “behavioral market failure,” see Sunstein, 2013a).

  3. 3

    See Kling et al. (2011, p. 7): “Because appropriate valuation of reductions in mortality risk generally requires information on how VRR [Value of Risk Reduction] varies among individuals and with risk characteristics, the SAB recommends that EPA orient its approach toward (a) recognizing the conceptually appropriate method to estimate population benefits and (b) developing a set of estimates of VRR for policy-relevant cases characterized by risk and individual characteristics (or a function relating VRR to risk and individual characteristics).”

  4. 4

    There is a question whether a “cancer premium” is justified by the existing literature. For discussion, see US Environmental Protection Agency (2010) and Kling (2011).

  5. 5

    See Kling et al. (2011, p. 8): “The SAB acknowledges that heterogeneity in WTP across types of risks will be more palatable to some audiences than heterogeneity across affected subpopulations. In the past, for example, the Agency has been criticized for considering VRRs that differ by individuals’ age. This is, however, a failure of communication rather than any theoretical ambiguity about whether economics admits for different demands by different types of people. It can be difficult to convey the distinction between the “intrinsic value of different human beings” and the “different WTP of people in different circumstances.” However, this difficulty does not justify using the wrong benefit measure for proposed policies.”

  6. 6

    There are, of course, complex questions about the relationships among rights, wealth, and risk. In one view, these variables cannot be separated from one another, and whether people have a “right” to freedom from certain statistical risks depends on an assessment of the level of resources in the relevant society. In that respect, some analysis of social welfare may be a precondition for any judgment about rights.

This Article has benefited from the author’s experience as Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2009 to 2012. Parts of the Essay draw on, but significantly revise, portions of Cass R. Sunstein, Valuing Life: A Plea for Disaggregation, 54 Duke LJ 385 (2004). A version will appear in Cass R. Sunstein, Valuing Life: Humanizing the Regulatory State (University of Chicago Press, 2013). I am grateful to Matthew Adler, Joseph Aldy, Martha Nussbaum, Eric Posner, and Lisa Robinson for valuable comments on a previous draft. Cassie Chambers provided superb research assistance.

References

Adler, M. D. (2008). Risk equity: a new proposal. Harvard Environmental Law Review 32, 1. Available at: Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=981003 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.981003.10.2139/ssrn.981003Suche in Google Scholar

Adler, M. D (2011). Well-being and fair distribution. New York: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Adler, M. D. (2013). Happiness surveys and public policy: what’s the use? Duke Law Journal 62, 1509–1601.Suche in Google Scholar

Adler, M., & Posner, E. (1999). Implementing cost-benefit analysis when preferences are distorted. U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper, (88).10.2139/ssrn.194571Suche in Google Scholar

Adler, M. D., & Posner, E. A. (2006). New foundations of cost-benefit analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctv1nzfgqtSuche in Google Scholar

Akerlof, G. A., & Dickens, W. T. (1984). The economic consequences of cognitive dissoncance. In: G. A. Ackerlof (Ed.) An economic theorist′s book of tales. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Aldy, J., & Viscusi, K. W. (2007). Age differences in the value of statistical life. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 1(2), 241–260.10.1093/reep/rem014Suche in Google Scholar

Arneson, R. J. (2000). Luck egalitarianism and prioritarianism. Ethics 110(2), 339–349.10.1086/233272Suche in Google Scholar

Ashenfelter, O., & Greenstone, M. (2002). Using mandated speed limits to measure the value of a statistical life. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w9094.10.3386/w9094Suche in Google Scholar

Benjamin, D. J., Kimball, M. S., Heffetz, O., & Rees-Jones, A. (2012). What do you think would make you happier? What do you think you would choose? The American Economic Review 102(5), 2083.10.1257/aer.102.5.2083Suche in Google Scholar

Bronsteen, J., Buccafusco, C., & Masur, Jonathan S. (2013). Well-being analysis versus cost-benefit analysis. Duke Law Journal 62, 1603–1689.Suche in Google Scholar

Conly, S. (2012). Against autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139176101Suche in Google Scholar

Cropper, M., Hammitt, J., & Robinson, L. (2011). Valuing mortality risk reductions: progress and challenges. Annual Review of Resource Economics 3, 313–336.10.1146/annurev.resource.012809.103949Suche in Google Scholar

Department of Transportation. (DOT). (2013). Available at: http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/DOT%202013%20Signed%20VSL%20Memo.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar

de Tocqueville, A. D. (1848). 1969, Democracy in America Trans. by George Lawrence. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Suche in Google Scholar

Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(4), 45–64.10.1257/jep.8.4.45Suche in Google Scholar

Dorman, P. (1996). Markets and mortality. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511628382Suche in Google Scholar

Dorman, P., & Hagstrom, P. (1998). Wage compensation for dangerous work revisited. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 52, 116–135.10.1177/001979399805200107Suche in Google Scholar

Dunn, E., & Norton, M. (2013). Happy money. New York: Simon and Schuster.Suche in Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. (2002). Sovereign virtue. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctv1c3pd0rSuche in Google Scholar

Elster, J. (1985). Sour grapes: studies in the subversion of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Elster, J., & Roemer, J. E. (Eds.). (1993). Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being. Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2000). Agency Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0228C-07.pdf/$file/EE-0228C-07.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010). Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper (Review Draft). Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Economics for consultation with the Science Advisory Board – Environmental Economics Advisory Committee.Suche in Google Scholar

Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2000). Miswanting. In: J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Graham, C. (2013). An economist’s perspective on well-being analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Duke Law Journal 62, 1691–1700.Suche in Google Scholar

Hedbegian, R. J., Gray, W., & Morgan, C. (2007). Benefits and costs from sulfur dioxide trading: a distributional analysis. In: G. R. Visgilio and D. M. Whitelaw (Eds.), Acid in the environment: lessons learned and future prospects. New York, New York: Springer.Suche in Google Scholar

Hicks, J. R. (1941). The rehabilitation of consumers’ surplus. The Review of Economic Studies 8(2), 108–116.10.2307/2967467Suche in Google Scholar

Jones-Lee, M. W. (1991). Altruism and the value of other people’s safety. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 4(2), 213–219.10.1007/BF00056126Suche in Google Scholar

Jones-Lee, M. W. (1992). Paternalistic altruism and the value of statistical life. The Economic Journal 102(410), 80–90.10.2307/2234853Suche in Google Scholar

Kahn, M. (2001). The beneficiaries of clean air act regulation. Regulation,24, 34–38.10.2139/ssrn.267073Suche in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Suche in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review 93(5), 1449–1475.10.1257/000282803322655392Suche in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., & Varey, C. (1991). Notes on the psychology of utility. In: J. Elster and J. Roemer (Eds.), Interpersonal comparisons of utility. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,112(2), 375–406.10.1162/003355397555235Suche in Google Scholar

Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. (1994). Why the legal system is less efficient than the income tax in redistributing wealth. Journal of Legal Studies 23, 667–681.10.1086/467941Suche in Google Scholar

Karlsson, N., Loewenstein, G., & McCafferty, J. (2004). The economics of meaning. Nordic Journal of Political Economy 30(1), 61–75.Suche in Google Scholar

Khader, S. J. (2011). Adaptive preferences and women′s empowerment. OUP USA.Suche in Google Scholar

Kling, C. L. & Swackhamer, D. L. (2011). Review of ‘Valuing Mortality Risk Reductions for Environmental Policy: A White Paper’ (December 10, 2010). Memorandum to Lisa P. Jackson, EPA Administrator, from the EPA Science Advisory Board and Environmental Economics Advisory Committee. EPA-SAB-11-011.Suche in Google Scholar

Kniesner, T. J., Viscusi, K. W. & Ziliak, J. P. (2012). Willingness to accept equals willingness to pay for labor market estimates of the value of statistical life. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2221038.Suche in Google Scholar

Korobkin, R. (2003). The endowment effect and legal analysis. Northwestern University Law Review 97(3), 1227–1293.Suche in Google Scholar

Leung, J., & Guna, J. (2006). Value of statistical life: adults versus children, Accid Anal. Prev. 38(6), 1208–1217.Suche in Google Scholar

Lindhjem, H., S. Navrud, N. A. Braathen, & V. Biausque. (2011). Valuing mortality risk reductions from environmental, transport, and health policies: a global meta-analysis of stated preference studies. Risk Analysis 31(9), 1381–1407.10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01694.xSuche in Google Scholar

Livermore, M. A., & Rosenberg, J. S. (2013). The shape of distributional analysis. The Globalization of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Policy 5, 69–84.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199934386.003.0005Suche in Google Scholar

Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. (Kathy Casey ed., 2002). New York: Dover.Suche in Google Scholar

Miller, T. R. (2000). Variations between countries in value of a statistical life. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 34, 169–188.Suche in Google Scholar

Posner, E. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Dollars and death. The University of Chicago Law Review 537–598.Suche in Google Scholar

Robinson, L. A., & Hammitt, J. K. (2011). Valuing health and longevity in regulatory analysis: current issues and challenges, In: The Handbook on the Politics of Regulation D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar. Available at www.regulatory-analysis.com.Suche in Google Scholar

Robinson, L. A., & J. K. Hammitt. (2013). Skills of the trade: valuing health risk reductions in benefit-cost analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 4(1), 107–130.10.1515/jbca-2012-0006Suche in Google Scholar

Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Sharot, T. (2010). The optimism bias. New York: Random House.Suche in Google Scholar

Shavell, S. (1981). A note of efficiency vs. distributional equity in legal rulemaking: should distributional equity matter given optimal income taxation? The American Economic Review 71(2), 414–418.Suche in Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. (2002a). Risk and reason. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. (2002b). Probability neglect. The Yale Law Journal 112(1), 61–107.10.2307/1562234Suche in Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. (2013a). The storrs lectures: behavioral economics and paternalism. Yale Law Journal, 113, Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2182619orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2182619.10.2139/ssrn.2182619Suche in Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. (2013b). Simpler. New York: Simon and Schuster.Suche in Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. (2014). The real world of cost-benefit analysis. Colum L Rev (forthcoming 2014).Suche in Google Scholar

Thaler, R., & Rosen, S. (1976). The value of saving a life. Available at http://www.nber.org/chapters/c3964.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Ubel, P. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). Pain and suffering awards: they shouldn’t be (just) about pain and suffering. The Journal of Legal Studies 37(S2), S195–S216.10.1086/529072Suche in Google Scholar

Viscusi, K. W. (1992). Fatal tradeoffs. New York: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Viscusi, W. (2010). The heterogeneity of the value of statistical life. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 40(1), 1–13.10.1007/s11166-009-9083-zSuche in Google Scholar

Viscusi, K. W., & Aldy, J. (2003). The value of a statistical life. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27(1), 5–76.10.1023/A:1025598106257Suche in Google Scholar

Viscusi, K. W. (2013). The benefits of mortality risk reduction. The Duke Law Journal 62, 1735–1745.Suche in Google Scholar

Weisbach, D. A. (2003). Should legal rules be used to redistribute income? The University of Chicago Law Review70(1), 439–453.10.2307/1600568Suche in Google Scholar

Williams, S. H. (2013). Statistical children. Yale Journal of Regulation 30, 63–125.Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In: M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2013-07-19
Published in Print: 2013-08-01

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Masthead
  2. Masthead
  4. Regional variation, holdouts, and climate treaty negotiations
  5. A cost-benefit framework for evaluating conditional cash-transfer programs
  6. A cost-benefit analysis: implementing temporary disability insurance in Washington State
  7. Cost-benefit analyses of sprinklers in nursing homes for elderly
  8. The value of a statistical life: some clarifications and puzzles
https://doi.org/10.1515/jbca-2013-0019
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
cost-benefit analysis; value of a statistical life; willingness to pay

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Masthead
  2. Masthead
  4. Regional variation, holdouts, and climate treaty negotiations
  5. A cost-benefit framework for evaluating conditional cash-transfer programs
  6. A cost-benefit analysis: implementing temporary disability insurance in Washington State
  7. Cost-benefit analyses of sprinklers in nursing homes for elderly
  8. The value of a statistical life: some clarifications and puzzles
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 19.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jbca-2013-0019/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen