IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/awi/wpaper/0722.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conducting Cost Benefit Analysis in Expected Utility Units Using Revealed Social Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Canning, David

Abstract

Assuming individual preferences satisfy the Von Neumann–Morgenstern axioms for expected utility we show how we can measure an individual’s expected utility of any state using their willingness to accept a gamble over two reference points. The utility function captures the diminishing marginal utility of money with income and risk aversion over gambles. This contrasts with the standard money metric valuations that assume linearity of an individual’s welfare in money. Measuring costs and benefits in expected utility units seems more appropriate than money units for applied welfare economics since it reflects individuals’ preferences more accurately, and can be applied to policies that involve risk. In addition, if social preferences satisfy the Von Neumann–Morgenstern axioms and the Pareto principle, social welfare is the weighted sum of these expected utilities. The weights can be calculated directly for the United States from revealed Government preferences on the allocation of mortality risk. The United States Government values lives equally in calculating the welfare losses from mortality risk and this implies an equal weighting of individual utilities if they are measured using willingness to accept a gamble of a probability of death versus the status quo; we call this life metric expected utility. For projects with small effects on expected utility, we show how to convert existing money metric cost benefit studies into life metric expected utility cost benefit analysis using weights based on how the money value of a statistical life varies with income in the United States. Our approach may be particularly appealing for the conduct of cost-benefit studies mandated by regulation in the United States to inform Government policy. It measures costs and benefits in expected utility units that respect individuals’ preferences over risk and sums these utility gains using the Government’s revealed preferences and implied social welfare function.

Suggested Citation

  • Canning, David, 2023. "Conducting Cost Benefit Analysis in Expected Utility Units Using Revealed Social Preferences," Working Papers 0722, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:awi:wpaper:0722
    Note: This paper is part of http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/view/schriftenreihen/sr-3.html
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-326746
    File Function: Frontdoor page on HeiDOK
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/32674/1/Canning_2023_dp722.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCarthy, David & Mikkola, Kalle & Thomas, Teruji, 2020. "Utilitarianism with and without expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 77-113.
    2. Chetty, Raj, 2006. "A general formula for the optimal level of social insurance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(10-11), pages 1879-1901, November.
    3. Herrera-Araujo, Daniel & Rochaix, Lise, 2020. "Does the Value per Statistical Life vary with age or baseline health? Evidence from a compensating wage study in France," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Daniel Herrera Araujo & Lise Rochaix, 2020. "Does the Value per Statistical Life vary with age or baseline health? Evidence from a compensating wage study in France," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-03353422, HAL.
    5. Thomas Kniesner & W. Viscusi & James Ziliak, 2010. "Policy relevant heterogeneity in the value of statistical life: New evidence from panel data quantile regressions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 15-31, February.
    6. Carthy, Trevor & Chilton, Susan & Covey, Judith & Hopkins, Lorraine & Jones-Lee, Michael & Loomes, Graham & Pidgeon, Nick & Spencer, Anne, 1998. "On the Contingent Valuation of Safety and the Safety of Contingent Valuation: Part 2--The CV/SG "Chained" Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 187-213, December.
    7. Layard, R. & Mayraz, G. & Nickell, S., 2008. "The marginal utility of income," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1846-1857, August.
    8. Louis Kaplow, 2005. "The Value of a Statistical Life and the Coefficient of Relative Risk Aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 23-34, July.
    9. Julien Hugonnier & Florian Pelgrin & Pascal St-Amour, 2022. "Valuing Life as an Asset, as a Statistic and at Gunpoint," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(643), pages 1095-1122.
    10. Adler, Matthew D. & Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2014. "The social value of mortality risk reduction: VSL versus the social welfare function approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 82-93.
    11. Hendren, Nathaniel, 2020. "Measuring economic efficiency using inverse-optimum weights," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    12. Milleron, Jean-Claude, 1972. "Theory of value with public goods: A survey article," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 419-477, December.
    13. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1988. "Money metric utility: A harmless normalization?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 120-129, October.
    14. Somanathan, E., 2006. "Valuing lives equally: Distributional weights for welfare analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 122-125, January.
    15. Angela Robinson & Anne Spencer, 2006. "Exploring challenges to TTO utilities: valuing states worse than dead," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 393-402, April.
    16. Rachel Baker & Susan Chilton & Michael Jones-Lee & Hugh Metcalf, 2008. "Valuing lives equally: Defensible premise or unwarranted compromise?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 125-138, April.
    17. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    18. Marc Fleurbaey, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay and the equivalence approach," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 121(1), pages 35-58.
    19. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    20. William E. Becker & Richard A. Stout, 1992. "The Utility of Death and Wrongful Death Compensation," Journal of Forensic Economics, National Association of Forensic Economics, vol. 5(3), pages 197-208, September.
    21. Elminejad, Ali & Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana, 2022. "Relative Risk Aversion: A Meta-Analysis," MetaArXiv b8uhe, Center for Open Science.
    22. Charles Blackorby & David Donaldson, 1990. "A Review Article: The Case against the Use of the Sum of Compensating Variations in Cost-Benefit Analysis," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 23(3), pages 471-494, August.
    23. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63, pages 309-309.
    24. Rossella Argenziano & Itzhak Gilboa, 2019. "Perception-theoretic Foundations of Weighted Utilitarianism," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(620), pages 1511-1528.
    25. Daniel Herrera Araujo & Lise Rochaix, 2020. "Does the Value per Statistical Life vary with age or baseline health? Evidence from a compensating wage study in France," Post-Print hal-03353422, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    3. Antoine Bommier & Bertrand Villeneuve, 2012. "Risk Aversion and the Value of Risk to Life," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 79(1), pages 77-104, March.
    4. Bleichrodt, Han, 1997. "Health utility indices and equity considerations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-91, February.
    5. Cameron, Trudy Ann & DeShazo, J.R., 2013. "Demand for health risk reductions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 87-109.
    6. Aditi Kharb & Sandesh Bhandari & Maria Moitinho de Almeida & Rafael Castro Delgado & Pedro Arcos González & Sandy Tubeuf, 2022. "Valuing Human Impact of Natural Disasters: A Review of Methods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-11, September.
    7. Marc Fleurbaey, 2009. "Beyond GDP: The Quest for a Measure of Social Welfare," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1029-1075, December.
    8. Daniel Bauer & Darius Lakdawalla & Julian Reif, 2018. "Mortality Risk, Insurance, and the Value of Life," NBER Working Papers 25055, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Louis Kaplow, 2010. "Concavity of utility, concavity of welfare, and redistribution of income," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 17(1), pages 25-42, February.
    10. Louis Kaplow, 2003. "Concavity of Utility, Concavity of Welfare, and Redistribution of Income," NBER Working Papers 10005, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Crispin H. V. Cooper, 2020. "Quantitative Models of Well-Being to Inform Policy: Problems and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, April.
    12. Adler, Matthew D. & Ferranna, Maddalena & Hammitt, James K. & Treich, Nicolas, 2021. "Fair innings? The utilitarian and prioritarian value of risk reduction over a whole lifetime," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    13. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    14. Paolo Giovanni Piacquadio, 2017. "A Fairness Justification of Utilitarianism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1261-1276, July.
    15. Hammitt, James K., 2022. "Prevention, Treatment, and Palliative Care: The Relative Value of Health Improvements under Alternative Evaluation Frameworks," TSE Working Papers 22-1339, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    16. Bergstrom, Katy & Dodds, William, 2021. "The targeting benefit of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    17. Marko Ledić & Ivica Rubil, 2021. "Beyond Wage Gap, Towards Job Quality Gap: The Role of Inter-Group Differences in Wages, Non-Wage Job Dimensions, and Preferences," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 523-561, June.
    18. Simon Galle & Andrés Rodríguez-Clare & Moises Yi, 2023. "Slicing the Pie: Quantifying the Aggregate and Distributional Effects of Trade," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 331-375.
    19. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Zuber, 2013. "Inequality aversion and separability in social risk evaluation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(3), pages 675-692, November.
    20. Keir G. Armstrong, 2004. "A Graphical Depiction of Hicksian Partial-Equilibrium Welfare Analysis," Carleton Economic Papers 04-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.

    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:awi:wpaper:0722. 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: Gabi Rauscher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/awheide.html .

    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.