IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v1y2017i01p122-142_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weighing private preferences in public sector safety decisions: some reflections on the practical application of the willingness-to-pay approach

Author

Listed:
  • JONES-LEE, MICHAEL
  • AVEN, TERJE

Abstract

Viewed from both an ethical and practical perspective, it is clearly desirable that public sector allocative and regulatory decisions should, so far as possible, reflect the preferences of individual members of society. It is therefore hardly surprising that, in appraising proposed safety improvements, public sector bodies have displayed an increasing tendency to estimate the benefits of such improvements on the basis of values of safety defined in such a way as to reflect the preferences and attitudes to safety of individual members of the public. However, given the technical complexity of many public sector safety decisions, it is also necessary to rely on expert analysis and informed judgement in reaching such decisions, so that preference-based values of safety should be regarded as being only one input to the decision-making process. In addition, the definition and estimation of the values themselves raise a number of practical and ethical questions. The purpose of this paper is to consider the role that preference-based values of safety can realistically be expected to play in these decision-making processes, given these difficulties and limitations.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones-Lee, Michael & Aven, Terje, 2017. "Weighing private preferences in public sector safety decisions: some reflections on the practical application of the willingness-to-pay approach," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 122-142, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:1:y:2017:i:01:p:122-142_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X16000014/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:bpubpo:v:1:y:2017:i:01:p:122-142_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    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.