Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Value of a Life: What Difference Does It Make?

  • Chapter
Risk/Benefit Analysis in Water Resources Planning and Management

  • 162 Accesses

Abstract

Critics of benefit-cost analyses of lifesaving programs commonly dismiss such analyses with the query “but how can you put a dollar value on a life?” Some believe that it is “morally and intellectually deficient”1 to attempt to monetize mortality. Other critics have observed that there are, at least currently, no generally agreed upon estimates of the so-called “value of a life” and, consequently, as Nicholas Ashford of M.I.T. has argued, “until society better understands this value, current analytic valuations of life must always be inadequate, and cannot be directly compared with the monetary costs or benefits of a regulation.”2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Michael S. Baram, “Regulation of Health, Safety and Environmental Quality and the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis,” final report to the Administrative Conference of the United States (March 1, 1979) p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  2. “Benefits of Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation,” prepared for the Senate Government Affairs Committee, Center for Policy Alternatives, MIT (March 26, 1980) p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The “human capital” measure is based on estimates of the present value of foregone earnings due to premature death. The “willingness to pay” measure is derived from estimates of how much individuals are willing to pay to reduce their probability of death by a small amount.

    Google Scholar 

  4. For the lower bound, see Jan P. Acton, “Evaluating Public Programs to Save Lives: The Cost of Heart Attacks,” Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Cal. (1973); for the upper bound, see M. W. Jones-Lee, “The Value of Life,” University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  5. For a review of these studies, see Robert S. Smith, Compensating wage differentials and public policy: a review, Ind. & Labor Relations Rev., 32, No. 3 (1979), pp. 339–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. All six of the studies done by the Council of Wage and Price Stability were cost-effectiveness studies.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The mean value of a life in the willingness-to-pay studies was $1,288 thousand; in the foregone-earnings studies it was $204 thousand.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Let p. be the proportion of those individuals whose lives would be saved who are age i and let ei be the life expectancy of individuals age i. Then “average life expectancy gained” is given by the sum over all ages i of the product of p. and ei. We used life expectancy data for the U.S. population for 1976 as given in the “Monthly Vital Statistics Report,” 26, No. 11 (Feb. 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Martin Bailey, “Reducing Risks to Life: Measurement of the Benefits,” American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. (1980), pp. 52–66; Robert S. Smith, op cit.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Of course, if a study considers a continuous range of alternatives rather than a few discrete alternatives, the value of a life will influence which policy is optimal.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Richard Zeckhauser, Procedures for valuing lives, Public Policy, 23, No. 4 (1975), pp. 419–464.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. For further discussion of this, see Howard Raiffa, William Schwartz, and Milton Weinstein, Evaluating health effects of social decision and programs, “EPA Decision Making,” National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  13. In most cases, all three kinds of statistics should be presented to provide a variety of perspectives.

    Google Scholar 

  14. These life-expectancy statistics are based on the assumption that victims, if saved, would face the same life chances as non-victims. Victims, however, may be frailer or more accident prone, on average, than non-victims. By making some estimates about this, Richard Zeckhauser and Donald Shephard in Where now for saving lives, Law and Contemp. Problems, 40, No. 4 (Autumn 1976), estimate an average life expectancy gained of 25 years, rather than 41 years, for victims of motor vehicle accidents. Also see James W. Vaupel, Kenneth G. Manton, and Eric Stallard, The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality, Demography, 16, No. 3 (August 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Charles Y. Warner, Michael R. Wither, and Richard Peterson, Societal priorities in occupant crash protection, Fourth International Congress on Automotive Safety (July 1975), pp. 907-960.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Howard P. Gates, Jr., Review and critique of NHTSA’s revised restraint system cost-benefit analysis, 4th Int. Congress on Automotive Safety (July 1975), pp. 209-233.

    Google Scholar 

  17. William T. Coleman, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Benefit-cost analysis of motor vehicle occupant crash protection, Federal Register (June 14, 1976), pp. 24078-79.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Richard J. Arnould and Henry Grabowski, Auto safety regulation: an analysis of market failure, Bell J. Econ. & Management Sci., in press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Council on Wage and Price Stability, Occupant Crash Protection Standard, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C., CWPS-244:1-24 (May 31, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Charles T. Clofelter and John C. Hahn, Assessing the national 55 mph speed limit, Policy Sci., 9:281–294 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. “National Highway Safety Needs Report,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. (April 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Swint, Shapiro, Corson, Reynolds, Thomas, and Kazazian, The economic returns to community and hospital screening programs for genetic disease, Preventive Medicine, 8:463–470 (1979).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rachel Dardis, Susan Aaronson and Ying-Nan Lin, Cost-benefit analysis of flammability standards, Am. J. Ag. Econ., pp. 697-699+ (November 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  24. T. E. Waterman, K. R. Minszewski and D. G. Spandoni, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Fire Detectors,” 63 pp., I IT Research Institute, Chicago (September 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rajindar Koshal and Manjulika Koshal, Environments and urban mortaility—an econometric approach, Environmental Pollution, 4:247–259 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thomas D. Crocker, William D. Schulze, Shaul Ben-David, and Allen V. Kneese, “Methods Development for Assessing Air Pollution Control Benefits,” vol. 1, Experiments in the Economics of Air Pollution Epidemiology, prepared for EPA (February 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Council on Environmental Quality, Annual Report, Washington, D.C. (1980). This report estimates incremental costs of stationary source cleanup at $7 billion.

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. Myrick Freeman, III, “The Benefits of Air and Water Pollution Control: A Review and Synthesis of Recent Estimates,” prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality (December 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zeckhauser and Shepard, op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lester B. Lave and Eugene Seskin, “Air Pollution and Human Health, Resources for the Future,” Johns Hopkins University Press (1977), Chap. 10, The benefits and costs of air pollution abatement, pp. 209-234.

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. M. Potter, M. L. Smith, and S. S. Lanwalker, “Cost-effectiveness, of Residential Fire Detector Systems,” Texas Tech. University (November 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  32. SRI, “Decision Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Upholstered Furniture Fire Losses,” Department of Commerce (June 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  33. General Accounting Office, “Effectiveness, Benefits and Costs of Federal Safety Standards for Protection of Passenger Car Occupants,” Washington, D.C. (July 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Leon S. Robertson, Car crashes: perceived vulnerability and willingness to pay for crash protection, J. Community Health, 3, No. 2 (1977), pp. 136–141.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Council on Wage and Price Stability, Council Urges More Study on Saccharin Ban, Executive Office of the President (June 15, 1977), p. 1-16.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Koplan, Schoerbaum, Weinstein and Fraser, Pertussis vaccine: an analysis of benefits, risks, and costs, New England J. Med., 301 (Oct. 1979). “No program” is desirable at high values of a life because more deaths will be caused by reactions to a vaccine than will be prevented.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gilbert Castle, The 55 mph limit: A cost-benefit analysis, Traffic Eng. (January 1976) pp. 11-14.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ford Motor Co., Benefits and costs related to fuel leakage associated with the Static Rollover Test portion of FMVSS 208, reprinted in the Chicago Tribune (October 14, 1979), section 1, P. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Charles A. Lave, Energy policy as public policy, in: “Changing Energy Use Futures,” vol. 4, pp. 2046-53, Fazzolare and Smith, eds., 2nd Int. Conf. on Energy Use Management (October 22–26, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  40. National Academy of Sciences, “Air Quality and Automobile Emission Control,” vol. 4, pp. 1-471, The Costs and Benefits of Automobile Emission Control, prepared for U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works (September 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Council on Wage and Price Stability, Council Comments on Proposed Standard for Occupational Exposure to Acrylonitrile, Executive Office of the President (May 22, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Council on Wage and Price Stability, Comments Submitted to the EPA on the Proposed Drinking Water Regulations, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. (September 5, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Andreis Muller, Evaluation of the costs and benefits of motorcycle helmet law, Am. J. Public Health, 70, No. 6 (June 1980), pp. 586-592.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Council on Wage and Price Stability, Council Comments on OSHA’s Proposed Standard on Arsenic, Executive Office of the President (September 14, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Charles Perry and Randall Outlaw, “Safe and Healthful Working Conditions—The Vinyl Chloride Experience,” University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Albert Nichols, Alternative regulatory strategies for controlling benzene emissions from malcic anhydride plants, paper for the Environmental Protection Agency (March 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Council on Wage and Price Stability, Exposure to Coke Oven Emissions: Proposed Standard, Executive Office of the President (May 11, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  48. The Supreme Court’s Benzene Decision, Secretary of Labor vs. API (July 2, 1980). The Court cites Richard Wilson’s work suggesting that the 1 ppm benzene standard would avert only 2 cancer deaths every six years. Ignoring capital costs and using OSHA’s estimate of $34 million per year in operating costs, it appears that the 1 ppm standard would cost $102 million per life saved.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., USA

    John D. Graham

  2. Department of Policy Sciences and Business Administration, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA

    James W. Vaupel

Authors
  1. John D. Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James W. Vaupel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Large Scale Systems and Policy Analysis, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Yacov Y. Haimes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1981 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Graham, J.D., Vaupel, J.W. (1981). The Value of a Life: What Difference Does It Make?. In: Haimes, Y.Y. (eds) Risk/Benefit Analysis in Water Resources Planning and Management. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2168-0_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2168-0_19

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-2170-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-2168-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation