Valuing Children’s Fatality Risk Reductions

Abstract

In benefit-cost analysis, fatality risk reductions are usually valued based on estimates of adults’ willingness to pay for changes in their own risks, regardless of whether the risk reduction accrues to adults or children. This approach reflects the relatively large number of valuation studies that address adults; however, the literature on children is growing. We review these studies, focusing on those that estimate values for both adults and children using a consistent approach to limit the effects of between-study variability. We rely on explicit selection criteria to identify studies that measure reasonably comparable outcomes and are candidates for application to analyses of U.S. policies. The ratio of values for children to values for adults ranges from 0.6 to 2.9; however, most estimates are greater than 1.5. Although some studies suggest that the divergence between child and adult values decreases as the child ages, this finding is not universal. We conclude that analysts should test the sensitivity of their results to the use of higher values for children than adults. Additional empirical research is needed to support more precise estimates of the variation in values by age that can be featured in the primary analysis.

Replaces

Lisa A. Robinson, William Raich, and James K. Hammitt, “Valuing Children’s Fatality Risk Reductions”, TSE Working Paper, n. 19-1018, June 2019.

Reference

Lisa A. Robinson, William Raich, James K. Hammitt, and L. O’Keeffe, “Valuing Children’s Fatality Risk Reductions”, Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, vol. 10, n. 2, July 2019, pp. 156–177.