IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v15y1995i6p615-626.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three Principles for Managing Risk in the Public Interest

Author

Listed:
  • Jatin Nathwani
  • Jan Narveson

Abstract

We propose three principles and a general framework of reasoning for managing risk in the public interest.Principle 1.Risks shall be managed to maximize the total expected net benefit to society— The principle that the net benefit is to be maximized across society as a whole is argued to be a sufficient and rational guide to assessing the effectiveness of efforts directed at reducing risk and thus improving health and safety. The net benefit of an activity is the excess of the totality of benefits over the totality of detriments.Principle 2.The safety benefit to be promoted is life‐expectancy— The goal is to ensure that risk mitigation efforts maximize the net benefit to society in the specific terms of length of life for all individuals. The effect of an activity on life expectancy is proposed as the proper basic measure of its net safety impact. Life expectancy is a universal measure valid for comparisons both within and among countries and can be adjusted to include health expectancy and other factors such as income levels that affect the quality of life. The impact on life expectancy allows a dispassionate accounting of the good and the bad inherent in any proposal or activity that is in the public interest but has some impact on life and health. Principle 3.Decisions for the public in regard to health and safety must be open and apply across the complete range of hazards to life and health— Systematic efforts to evaluate all the important consequences, both direct and indirect, are required to improve the basis for risk management in society. Balancing of the detriments and the benefits of any given initiative is the key aspect of the undertaking. Safety may well be an important objective in society, but it is not the only one. Thus, allocation of society's resources devoted to safety must be openly and continually appraised in light of other competing social needs because there is a limit on the resources that can be expended to save lives. Maximization of healthful life for all is judged the proper basis for managing risk in the public interest, and that this is achieved when the net of the contribution to the total saving of life exceeds the loss of life.

Suggested Citation

  • Jatin Nathwani & Jan Narveson, 1995. "Three Principles for Managing Risk in the Public Interest," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 615-626, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:6:p:615-626
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01333.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01333.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01333.x?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
    ---><---

    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. 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. John D. Graham & James W. Vaupel, 1981. "Value of a Life: What Difference Does It Make?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 89-95, March.
    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. M. Pandey, 2004. "Response to Letter to the Editor," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 307-309, April.
    2. Mahesh D. Pandey & Jatin S. Nathwani, 2003. "Canada Wide Standard for Particulate Matter and Ozone: Cost‐Benefit Analysis Using a Life Quality Index," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 55-67, February.
    3. Rackwitz, Rüdiger, 2006. "The effect of discounting, different mortality reduction schemes and predictive cohort life tables on risk acceptability criteria," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(4), pages 469-484.

    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. 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.
    2. Banzhaf, H. Spencer & Desvousges, William H. & Johnson, F. Reed, 1996. "Assessing the externalities of electricity generation in the Midwest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 395-421, December.
    3. Robert L. Herrick & Steven G. Buchberger & Robert M. Clark & Margaret Kupferle & Regan Murray & Paul Succop, 2012. "A Markov Model To Estimate Salmonella Morbidity, Mortality, Illness Duration, And Cost," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(10), pages 1169-1182, October.
    4. Doucouliagos, Chris & Stanley, T.D. & Giles, Margaret, 2012. "Are estimates of the value of a statistical life exaggerated?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 197-206.
    5. Owens, Nicole N. & Swinton, Scott M. & Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van, 1995. "Farmer Demand for Safer Pesticides," Staff Paper Series 201201, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    6. G. Arabsheibani & A. Marin, 2000. "Stability of Estimates of the Compensation for Danger," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 247-269, May.
    7. Bowland, Bradley J. & Beghin, John C., 2001. "Robust estimates of value of a statistical life for developing economies," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 385-396, May.
    8. Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin, 2010. "Le calcul de la valeur statistique d’une vie humaine," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 86(4), pages 487-530, décembre.
    9. Bellavance, Franois & Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin, 2009. "The value of a statistical life: A meta-analysis with a mixed effects regression model," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 444-464, March.
    10. Frazão, Elizabeth, 1995. "The American Diet: Health and Economic Consequences," Agricultural Information Bulletins 309727, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    12. Kuchler, Fred & Golan, Elise H., 1999. "Assigning Values To Life: Comparing Methods For Valuing Health Risks," Agricultural Economic Reports 34037, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. 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.
    14. Andrea Baranzini & Giovanni Ferro Luzzi, 2001. "The Economic Value of Risks to Life: Evidence from the Swiss Labour Market," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 137(II), pages 149-170, June.
    15. Phaedra S. Corso & James K. Hammitt & John D. Graham & Richard C. Dicker & Sue J. Goldie, 2002. "Assessing Preferences for Prevention versus Treatment Using Willingness to Pay," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(1_suppl), pages 92-101, September.
    16. Johannesson, Magnus & O'Conor, Richard M., 1997. "Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 241-253, March.
    17. Liu, Jin-Tan & Hammitt, James K. & Liu, Jin-Long, 1997. "Estimated hedonic wage function and value of life in a developing country," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 353-358, December.
    18. Alison C. Taylor & John S. Evans & Thomas E. McKone, 1993. "The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 403-412, August.
    19. François Gardes, 2021. "On the value of time and human life," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 21023, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    20. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.

    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:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:6:p:615-626. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.