Behavioral economics and the value of a statistical life

Abstract

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.

Value of statistical life year in extreme poverty: a randomized experiment of measurement methods in rural Burkina Faso

“…Based on the behavioral decision making and preference elicitation literature we predict that (1) WTA elicits larger VSLY than WTP [ 19 , 20 , 27 ], and that (2) the large-range (large-step) choice lists elicit larger VSLY than the small-range (small-step) lists [ 12 , 21 , 28 ]. Additionally, we test the hypothesis whether the GDP-per-capita multiple of the VSLY is equal to 3.0 versus larger than 3.0—the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended multiple [ 7 ].…”

Compensating Differentials for Occupational Health and Safety Risks: Implications of Recent Evidence

“…Recently, the concepts from behavioral economics have been applied to a wide selection of economic areas, including the value of a statistical life. Possibly the most important result is that future VSL estimates may need to consider reference group effects, reference point effects and possible differences between decision utility and experienced utility (Kniesner 2019). 1…”

Risk–Risk Tradeoffs for Mass Shootings and International Terrorism

“…Based on the characteristics of the risks and previous research, the public might have a greater preference for preventing both mass shooting and terrorism risks compared to nondreaded, familiar risks such as those from automobile fatalities (Fischhoff et al., 1981; Hammitt and Haninger (2010); Kniesner, 2019; Robinson & Hammitt, 2011; Robinson, Hammitt, Aldy, Krupnick, & Baxter, 2010). People highly fear worst‐case terrorism outcomes (Viscusi & Zeckhauser, 2003), but also exhibit “recollection bias,” believing that the current risk of a future terrorist attack is no higher than they recall having believed before each unexpected event (Liu et al., 2018; Viscusi & Zeckhauser, 2005, 2017).…”