The protection of children's health has recently become a mandated priority for federal policy makers. To assess many of the regulations that affect children's health, policy makers need estimates of the monetary value of reducing mortality risks to children. Although the economics literature has provided many estimates of the value of statistical life (VSL) for adult populations, it has provided none for school age children. This article studies the market for bicycle safety helmets and estimates for the first time a separate but comparable VSL for children and adults. We derive three estimates of VSL for each of three age categories (5 to 9, 10 to 14, and 20 to 59) that range from $1.1 to $4.0 million. In all cases, estimates for adults are highest, followed by estimates for the youngest children. (JEL J13, J17) * This is a revised version of a paper presented at

This article explores two problems analysts face in determining how to estimate values for children's health and safety risk reductions. The first addresses the question: Do willingness-to-pay estimates for health risk changes differ across children and adults and, if so, how? To answer this question, the article first examines the potential effects of age and risk preferences on willingness to pay. A summary of the literature reporting empirical evidence of differences between willingness to pay for adult health and safety risk reductions and willingness to pay for health and safety risk reductions in children is also provided. The second dimension of the problem is a more fundamental issue: Whose perspective is relevant when valuing children's health effects-society's, children's, adults-as-children, or parents'? Each perspective is considered, followed ultimately by the conclusion that adopting a parental perspective through an intrahousehold allocation model seems closest to meeting the needs of the estimation problem at hand. A policy example in which the choice of perspective affects the outcome of a regulatory benefit-cost analysis rounds out the article and emphasizes the importance of perspective.

No abstract

Benefit-cost analysis is of growing importance in developing policies to reduce exposures to environmental contaminants. To quantify health benefits of reduced exposures, economists generally rely on dose-response relationships estimated by risk assessors. Further, to be useful for benefits analysis, the endpoints that are quantified must be expressed as changes in incidence of illnesses or symptoms that are readily understood by and perceptible to the layperson. For most noncancer health effects and for nonlinear carcinogens, risk assessments generally do not provide the dose-response functions necessary for economic benefits analysis. This article presents the framework for a case study that addresses these issues through a combination of toxicology, epidemiology, statistics, and economics. The case study assesses a chemical that disrupts proper functioning of the thyroid gland, and considers the benefits of reducing exposures in terms of both noncancer health effects (hypothyroidism) and thyroid cancers. The effects are presumed to be due to a mode of action involving interference with thyroid-pituitary functioning that would lead to nonlinear dose response. The framework integrates data from animal testing, statistical modeling, human data from the medical and epidemiological literature, and economic methodologies and valuation studies. This interdisciplinary collaboration differs from the more typical approach in which risk assessments and economic analyses are prepared independently of one another. This framework illustrates particular approaches that may be useful for expanded quantification of adverse health effects, and demonstrates the potential of such interdisciplinary approaches. Detailed implementation of the case study framework will be presented in future publications.

Benefit-cost analysis relies heavily upon risk assessment. The extent to which benefits can be quantitatively included in an economic analysis is frequently determined by risk assessment methods. Therefore, interdisciplinary collaboration between economists and experts in risk assessment-related disciplines is critical to further development of quantitative human health benefits analysis. To further lay the groundwork for such collaborations, this article reviews the economic foundations of benefit-cost analysis, identifies implications of incorporating this approach into risk assessment, and suggests future cooperation between economists and risk assessors.