IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeeman/v30y1996i3p348-368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When is a Life Too Costly to Save? The Evidence from U.S. Environmental Regulations

Author

Listed:
  • Van Houtven, George
  • Cropper, Maureen L.

Abstract

Except for two relatively minor statutes, U.S. environmental laws do not permit the balancing of costs and benefits in setting environmental standards. The Clean Air Act, for example, prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from considering costs in setting ambient air quality standards. Similarly, the Clean Water Act does not allow consideration of benefits in setting effluent standards. When the EPA is allowed to balance benefits against costs, it has considerable discretion in defining"balancing."The authors ask two questions: Whether allowed to or not, has the EPA balanced costs and benefits in setting environmental standards? Where has the EPA drawn the line in deciding how much to spend to save a statistical life? Their answers are based on data about the costs and benefits of regulations involving three classes of pollutants: cancer-causing pesticides usedon food crops (1975-89); carcinogenic air pollutants (1975-90); and all uses of asbestos regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The following are their findings. The EPA behaved as though it were balancing costs and benefits in its regulation of pesticides under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and of asbestos under Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the two so-called balancing statutes. The higher the cost of the ban, the less likely the EPA was to ban the use of these products. The greater the number of lives saved, the more likely the EPA was to ban their use. But the amount the EPA was (implicitly) willing to spend to save a life was high: $52 million to prevent cancer among pesticide applicators, and $49 million to avoid cancer through exposure to asbestos. The value the EPA attached to saving a life was higher for workers than for consumers. The value attached to avoiding a case of cancer through exposure to pesticide resides on food was less than $100,000, in contrast with the $52 million value of preventing cancer among pesticide applicators
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Van Houtven, George & Cropper, Maureen L., 1996. "When is a Life Too Costly to Save? The Evidence from U.S. Environmental Regulations," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 348-368, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:30:y:1996:i:3:p:348-368
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095-0696(96)90024-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Josephine A. Mauskopf, 1987. "Projections of Cancer Risks Attributable to Future Exposure to Asbestos," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 477-486, December.
    2. Ann Fisher & Lauraine G. Chestnut & Daniel M. Violette, 1989. "The value of reducing risks of death: A note on new evidence," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(1), pages 88-100.
    3. Cropper, Maureen L. & William N. Evans & Stephen J. Berard & Maria M. Ducla-Soares & Paul R. Portney, 1992. "The Determinants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision Making," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(1), pages 175-197, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. R. O'Ryan & M. Díaz, 2000. "Risk-Cost Analysis for the Regulation of Airborne Toxic Substances in a Developing Context: The Case of Arsenic in Chile," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(2), pages 115-134, February.
    2. Zilberman, David & Hochman, Gal & Sexton, Steven E., 2008. "Food Safety, the Environment, and Trade," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48637, World Bank.
    3. Cropper, Maureen L. & Subramanian, Uma, 1995. "Public choices between lifesaving programs : how important are lives saved?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1497, The World Bank.
    4. A. Myrick Freeman III, 2002. "Environmental Policy Since Earth Day I: What Have We Gained?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 125-146, Winter.
    5. Turaga, Rama Mohana R. & Noonan, Douglas & Bostrom, Ann, 2011. "Hot spots regulation and environmental justice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1395-1405, May.
    6. Wen, Zongguo & Chen, Jining, 2008. "A cost-benefit analysis for the economic growth in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 356-366, April.
    7. William S. Neilson & Geum Soo Kim, 2001. "A Standard‐Setting Agency and Environmental Enforcement," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(3), pages 757-763, January.
    8. Jahn K. Hakes, 1999. "Stringency of Workplace Air Contaminant Exposure Limits: A Case Study of OSHA Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 1113-1125, December.
    9. Temirlan T. Moldogaziev & Rachel M. Krause & Gwen Arnold & Le Ahn Nguyen Long & Tatyana Ruseva & Chris Silvia & Christopher Witko, 2023. "Support for the environment post‐transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 186-206, March.
    10. Freeman, A. Myrick, III, 2001. "Environmental Policy Since Earth Day I: What Do We Know About the Benefits and Costs?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-14, April.
    11. STÅLE Navrud & GERALD Pruckner, 1997. "Environmental Valuation – To Use or Not to Use? A Comparative Study of the United States and Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, July.
    12. Damian Tago & Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Pesticides and Health: A Review of Evidence on Health Effects, Valuation of Risks, and Benefit-Cost Analysis," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 203-295, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    13. Cash, Sean B. & Sunding, David L. & Zilberman, David, 2002. "Health Tradeoffs In Pesticide Regulation," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19821, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Cash, Sean B. & Sunding, David L. & Zilberman, David, 2004. "Fat Taxes And Thin Subsidies: Prices, Diet, And Health Outcomes," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19961, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. repec:bla:perwir:v:1:y:2000:i:1:p:92-114 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Andrew B. Whitford, 2007. "Competing Explanations for Bureaucratic Preferences," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(3), pages 219-247, July.
    17. Zivin, Joshua Graff & Zilberman, David, 2002. "Optimal Environmental Health Regulations with Heterogeneous Populations: Treatment versus "Tagging"," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 455-476, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    2. George L. Van Houtven, 1997. "Altruistic Preferences for Life‐Saving Public Programs: Do Baseline Risks Matter?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 85-92, February.
    3. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van, 1992. "Public Perceptions of Food Saftey: Implications for Emerging Agricultural Technologies," Staff Paper Series 201159, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    5. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    6. Stavins, Robert & Hahn, Robert & Cavanagh, Sheila, 2001. "National Environmental Policy During the Clinton Years," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-38, Resources for the Future.
    7. Buzby, Jean C. & Ready, Richard C. & Skees, Jerry R., 1995. "Contingent Valuation in Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study of a Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 613-625, December.
    8. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & McGuirk, Anya, 1992. "Consumer Perspectives on Crop Protection Technology Choice," Staff Paper Series 201158, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    9. Matthew Turner & Quinn Weninger, 2005. "Meetings with Costly Participation: An Empirical Analysis," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(1), pages 247-268.
    10. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan, 2018. "The benefits of avoiding cancer (or dying from cancer): Evidence from a four- country study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 249-262.
    11. Athanasios Lapatinas & Anastasia Litina & Eftichios S. Sartzetakis, 2011. "Corruption and Environmental Policy: An Alternative Perspective," Working Papers 2011.23, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Metrick, Andrew & Weitzman, Martin L., 1994. "Patterns of behavior in biodiversity preservation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1358, The World Bank.
    13. Damian Tago & Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Pesticides and Health: A Review of Evidence on Health Effects, Valuation of Risks, and Benefit-Cost Analysis," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 203-295, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    14. Nicolas Treich, 2000. "Décision séquentielle et Principe de Précaution," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 55, pages 5-24.
    15. Zilberman, David & Millock, Katti, 1997. "Pesticide Use And Regulation: Making Economic Sense Out Of An Externality And Regulation Nightmare," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Zilberman, David & Hochman, Gal & Sexton, Steven E., 2008. "Food Safety, the Environment, and Trade," Agricultural Distortions Working Paper Series 48637, World Bank.
    17. Yu-Bong Lai, 2007. "The Optimal Distribution of Pollution Rights in the Presence of Political Distortions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(3), pages 367-388, March.
    18. Cropper, Maureen L. & Subramanian, Uma, 1995. "Public choices between lifesaving programs : how important are lives saved?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1497, The World Bank.
    19. Currie, Janet & Gruber, Jonathan & Fischer, Michael, 1995. "Physician Payments and Infant Mortality: Evidence from Medicaid Fee Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 106-111, May.
    20. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Introduction to the Political Economy of Environmental Regulations," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-12, Resources for the Future.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:30:y:1996:i:3:p:348-368. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.