IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

01-06 "The $6.1 Million Dollar Question"

Listed author(s):
  • Kevin P. Gallagher
  • Francisco Aguayo

What is the dollar value of saving a human life? Cost-benefit analysis of health and environmental regulation requires such a number, yet the concept raises numerous ethical and philosophical questions. There are good general reasons to reject the entire enterprise of monetizing life, and specific reasons to criticize the methods used to create such values. Valuations of life are most often based on analysis of the wage premium for risky jobs. Recent EPA analyses have relied on an extensive but dated database of wage-risk estimates, leading to an inflation-adjusted estimate of $6.1 million per life in 1999 dollars. A more appropriate interpretation of that database implies an estimate of at least $9-11 million. Some newer studies suggest much lower values - perhaps due to the weakened bargaining position of labor, a factor that has nothing to do with the value of environmental risk. The risk premium for working women is five times as great as for men, underscoring the impossibility of a "one size fits all" estimate of the value of a statistical life. Such values are not necessary for reasonable decision-making about how to reduce fatal risks.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by GDAE, Tufts University in its series GDAE Working Papers with number 01-06.

in new window

Date of creation:
Handle: RePEc:dae:daepap:01-06
Contact details of provider: Postal:
44 Teele Avenue Medford, MA 02155

Phone: 617-627-3530
Fax: 617-627-2409
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dae:daepap:01-06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Erin Coutts)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.