2013
DOI: 10.1515/jbca-2012-0015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

New risk rates, inter-industry differentials and the magnitude of VSL estimates

Abstract: The Census of Fatal Occupational Injury (CFOI) provides data for creating objective measures of workplace risk used in estimations of wage-risk premia for value of statistical life (VSL) calculations. This relatively new data set enables a more theoretically defensible measure for use in hedonic wage equations. However, constructing these rates from the CFOI data necessarily involves creating an industry-occupation matrix defining the “jobs,” deciding whether or not to include the self-employed, and selecting … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(33 reference statements)
1
8
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The highlighted VSLs range from $2.1 million to $20.8 million, with most between $6.8 million and $12.0 million. The lowest values ($2.1 million to $4.1 million) are from a working paper that experiments with the use of Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection data (Lee and Taylor ), while the highest ($9.2 million to $20.8 million) are from a paper where the author notes, ‘[t]he intent of this study is not to posit a particular value for the VSL; rather, it is to demonstrate how the construction of the fatal risk rate measure impacts the magnitude of the VSL estimate’ (Scotton , p. 65).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The highlighted VSLs range from $2.1 million to $20.8 million, with most between $6.8 million and $12.0 million. The lowest values ($2.1 million to $4.1 million) are from a working paper that experiments with the use of Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection data (Lee and Taylor ), while the highest ($9.2 million to $20.8 million) are from a paper where the author notes, ‘[t]he intent of this study is not to posit a particular value for the VSL; rather, it is to demonstrate how the construction of the fatal risk rate measure impacts the magnitude of the VSL estimate’ (Scotton , p. 65).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13 Rather than selecting a single estimate from each study, Viscusi 10 Previous meta-analyses of the wage-risk literature have been criticized in part for not applying carefully developed, explicit criteria for selecting studies for inclusion (EPA 2006, Cropper et al 2007). 11 The 10 excluded studies are Jennings and Kinderman (2003), Evans and Smith (2008), Viscusi and Hersch (2008), Evans and Schaur (2010), Kniesner, Viscusi, and Ziliak (2010), Scotton andTaylor (2011), Lavetti (2012), Kniesner, Viscusi, Woock, and Ziliak (2012), DeLeire, Khan, and Timmins (2013), and Kniesner, Viscusi, and Ziliak (2014). We generally exclude these studies because they address only a subset of workers and/or do not control for occupation as well as industry; one (DeLeire et al) does not report a full sample VSL.…”
Section: Revealed-preference Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Using wages as an estimate of a VSL wrongly equates prices and values (Rice, 2015). Revealed preference techniques using either wage premiums or expenditure on safety equipment (Bellavance et al, 2009) require strong assumptions regarding the information available on the risk associated with particular jobs or behaviours (Dolan et al, 2008), and values are very sensitive to the exact nature of risk estimation (Scotton, 2013).…”
Section: A C C E P T E D Mmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the contrary, the HWM estimates VSL while using the wage data of the labor market, which are often readily available, thereby resulting in a low operating cost. Thus, HWM is currently the dominant approach in estimating VSL, which has been extensively used [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%