We conduct, to our knowledge, the first global meta-analysis (MA) of stated preference (SP) surveys of mortality risk valuation. The surveys ask adults their willingness to pay (WTP) for small reductions in mortality risks, deriving estimates of the sample mean value of statistical life (VSL) for environmental, health, and transport policies. We explain the variation in VSL estimates by differences in the characteristics of the SP methodologies applied, the population affected, and the characteristics of the mortality risks valued, including the magnitude of the risk change. The mean (median) VSL in our full data set of VSL sample means was found to be around $7.4 million (2.4 million) (2005 U.S. dollars). The most important variables explaining the variation in VSL are gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and the magnitude of the risk change valued. According to theory, however, VSL should be independent of the risk change. We discuss and test a range of quality screening criteria in order to investigate the effect of limiting the MA to high-quality studies. When limiting the MA to studies that find statistically significant differences in WTP using external or internal scope tests (without requiring strict proportionality), we find that mean VSL from studies that pass both tests tend to be less sensitive to the magnitude of the risk change. Mean VSL also tends to decrease when stricter screening criteria are applied. For many of our screened models, we find a VSL income elasticity of 0.7-0.9, which is reduced to 0.3-0.4 for some subsets of the data that satisfy scope tests or use the same high-quality survey.

How many instruments should be used to address a particular environmental problem? That is the question this article addresses. According to the "Tinbergen rule," one instrument per target is needed. The existence of any non-environmental market failures affecting the environmental problem at hand will also require one additional instrument per market failure. However, detailed case studies reveal that it is no simple task to count neither the number of relevant targets, nor the number of instruments applied. While there are good reasons to apply several instruments in combination to address a given environmental problem (non-environmental market failures, "multi-aspect" character of many problems, cases where one instrument underpin the use of other instruments, the need to address non-environmental policy concerns, etc.), it is sometimes difficult to see that such arguments have been the main explanations for the instrument mixes in practical use. There are also cases where the environmental effectiveness or economic efficiency of an instrument mix is hampered by lacking instruments.This article draws heavily on work undertaken together with my colleague Ysé Serret at OECD. I am also grateful for this helpful comments from my colleagues Jean-Philippe Barde, Tom Jones and Henrik Harjula, and from Henk Folmer, Tom Tietenberg and an anonymous referee.The opinions expressed in the article are, however, my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OECD or its member countries.

No abstract

Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 23-Sep-2015 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English-Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE MONETARY CARBON VALUES IN POLICY APPRAISAL: AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE AND KEY ISSUES-ENVIRONMENT WORKING PAPER No. 92 By Stephen Smith (University College London) and Nils Axel Braathen (OECD) OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s).

JT03417335 Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. ENV/WKP(2017)11 Unclassified English-Or. English ENV/WKP(2017)11 2 OECD ENVIRONMENT WORKING PAPERS OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works. This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected studies on environmental issues prepared for use within the OECD. Authorship is usually collective, but principal author(s) are named. The papers are generally available only in their original language-English or Frenchwith a summary in the other language.