IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v94y2009i11p1729-1734.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimising risk reduction: An expected utility approach for marginal risk reduction during regulatory decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Jiawei
  • Pollard, Simon
  • Kendall, Graham
  • Soane, Emma
  • Davies, Gareth

Abstract

In practice, risk and uncertainty are essentially unavoidable in many regulation processes. Regulators frequently face a risk-benefit trade-off since zero risk is neither practicable nor affordable. Although it is accepted that cost–benefit analysis is important in many scenarios of risk management, what role it should play in a decision process is still controversial. One criticism of cost–benefit analysis is that decision makers should consider marginal benefits and costs, not present ones, in their decision making. In this paper, we investigate the problem of regulatory decision making under risk by applying expected utility theory and present a new approach of cost–benefit analysis. Directly taking into consideration the reduction of the risks, this approach achieves marginal cost–benefit analysis. By applying this approach, the optimal regulatory decision that maximizes the marginal benefit of risk reduction can be considered. This provides a transparent and reasonable criterion for stakeholders involved in the regulatory activity. An example of evaluating seismic retrofitting alternatives is provided to demonstrate the potential of the proposed approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Jiawei & Pollard, Simon & Kendall, Graham & Soane, Emma & Davies, Gareth, 2009. "Optimising risk reduction: An expected utility approach for marginal risk reduction during regulatory decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(11), pages 1729-1734.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:94:y:2009:i:11:p:1729-1734
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2009.05.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832009001100
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2009.05.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viscusi, W Kip, 1993. "The Value of Risks to Life and Health," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1912-1946, December.
    2. Richard B. Belzer, 2000. "Discounting Across Generations: Necessary, not Suspect," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(6), pages 779-792, December.
    3. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    4. Office of Health Economics, 2007. "The Economics of Health Care," For School 001490, Office of Health Economics.
    5. Kenneth J. Arrow & Robert C. Lind, 1974. "Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 3, pages 54-75, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. anonymous, 1995. "Economist examines financial derivatives risk," Financial Update, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, vol. 8(Jan), pages 1-4.
    7. J. Huston McCulloch, 1977. "The Austrian Theory of the Marginal Use And of Ordinal Marginal Utility," NBER Working Papers 0170, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Jairo Valcárcel & Miguel Mora & Omar Cardona & Lluis Pujades & Alex Barbat & Gabriel Bernal, 2013. "Methodology and applications for the benefit cost analysis of the seismic risk reduction in building portfolios at broadscale," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(1), pages 845-868, October.
    2. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås, 2020. "On the importance of systems thinking when using the ALARP principle for risk management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. Shahid Rasheed & ChangFeng Wang & Bruno Lucena, 2015. "Risk Leveling in Program Environments—A Structured Approach for Program Risk Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-24, May.
    4. Olga Špačková & Daniel Straub, 2015. "Cost‐Benefit Analysis for Optimization of Risk Protection Under Budget Constraints," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 941-959, 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. Powdthavee, Nattavudh & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Putting different price tags on the same health condition: Re-evaluating the well-being valuation approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 1032-1043.
    2. Bruno Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2005. "Happiness Research: State and Prospects," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(2), pages 207-228.
    3. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    4. Salvador Saz-Salazar & Ana Navarrete-Tudela & José Ramón Alcalá-Mellado & Daniel Carlos Saz-Salazar, 2019. "On the Use of Life Satisfaction Data for Valuing Cultural Goods: A First Attempt and a Comparison with the Contingent Valuation Method," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 119-140, January.
    5. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. James F. Burgess & Matthew L. Maciejewski & Chris L. Bryson & Michael Chapko & John C. Fortney & Mark Perkins & Nancy D. Sharp & Chuan‐Fen Liu, 2011. "Importance of health system context for evaluating utilization patterns across systems," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 239-251, February.
    7. McDonald, Rebecca & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2018. "The Shadow Prices of Voluntary Caregiving: Using Panel Data of Well-Being to Estimate the Cost of Informal Care," IZA Discussion Papers 11545, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Verónica Amarante & Marco Manacorda & Edward Miguel & Andrea Vigorito, 2016. "Do Cash Transfers Improve Birth Outcomes? Evidence from Matched Vital Statistics, Program, and Social Security Data," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-43, May.
    9. Hope Corman & Dhaval Dave & Nancy E. Reichman, 2018. "Evolution of the Infant Health Production Function," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(1), pages 6-47, July.
    10. Trottmann, Maria & Zweifel, Peter & Beck, Konstantin, 2012. "Supply-side and demand-side cost sharing in deregulated social health insurance: Which is more effective?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 231-242.
    11. Michael Geruso & Timothy J. Layton & Jacob Wallace, 2023. "What Difference Does a Health Plan Make? Evidence from Random Plan Assignment in Medicaid," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 341-379, July.
    12. Rausser, Gordon C. & de Janvry, Alain & Schmitz, Andrew & Zilberman, David D., 1980. "Principal issues in the evaluation of public research in agriculture," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt74v9m7dh, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    13. Reinhard Mechler & Stefan Hochrainer & Asbjørn Aaheim & Håkon Salen & Anita Wreford, 2010. "Modelling economic impacts and adaptation to extreme events: Insights from European case studies," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 737-762, October.
    14. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    15. Murthy, Vasudeva N.R. & Okunade, Albert A., 2009. "The core determinants of health expenditure in the African context: Some econometric evidence for policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 57-62, June.
    16. Fabio Pammolli & Francesco Porcelli & Francesco Vidoli & Monica Auteri & Guido Borà, 2017. "La spesa sanitaria delle Regioni in Italia - Saniregio2017," Working Papers CERM 01-2017, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    17. Shunichi Fukuhara & Chikao Yamazaki & Yasuaki Hayashino & Takahiro Higashi & Margaret Eichleay & Takashi Akiba & Tadao Akizawa & Akira Saito & Friedrich Port & Kiyoshi Kurokawa, 2007. "The organization and financing of end-stage renal disease treatment in Japan," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 217-231, September.
    18. Michele Fioretti & Hongming Wang, 2023. "Performance Pay in Insurance Markets: Evidence from Medicare," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(5), pages 1128-1144, September.
    19. Maite Blázquez Cuesta & Santiago Budría, 2014. "Deprivation and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Panel Data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(4), pages 655-682, December.
    20. Friedrich Breyer & Stefan Felder, 2002. "The Dead-Anyway Effect Revis(it)ed," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 302, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    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:reensy:v:94:y:2009:i:11:p:1729-1734. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    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.