Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 259–282 | Cite as

Bad Deaths



Evidence is presented to show that people are willing to pay a premium to avoid bad deaths—deaths that are especially dreaded, uncontrollable, involuntarily incurred, and inequitably distributed. Public judgments of this kind help explain the demand for regulation. But some of these judgments do not justify current policies, because they stem from selective attention and confusion. Few causes of death are entirely uncontrollable or faced wholly involuntarily; the issue is not whether they can be controlled but at what cost. But three kinds of bad deaths deserve special attention: those imposing high externalities, those preceded by unusual pain and suffering, and those producing distributional inequity.

Value of life safety regulation cost-benefit analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alhakami, Ali Siddiq and Paul Slovic. (1994). “A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit,” Risk Analysis 14:1085–1105.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Elizabeth. (1993). Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bessette, William. (1995). The Mild Voice of Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Breyer, Stephen. (1993). Breaking the Vicious Circle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cropper and Subramanian. (1995). “Public Choices Between Lifesaving Programs: How Important Are Lives Saved?” The World Bank.Google Scholar
  6. Fiorino, Daniel. (1989). “Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis.” Risk Analysis 9:293–314.Google Scholar
  7. Fishkin, James. (1995). The Voice of the People.New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Frank, Robert. (1983). Choosing the Right Pond. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. Frank, Robert, Gilovich Thomas, and Regan Dennis. (1993). “Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?” J. of Economic Perspectives 7:159–171.Google Scholar
  10. Jones-Lee, M.W., Hammerton, M. and Philips, P.R. (1985). “The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey.” Economic Journal 95:49–72.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, Daniel. (1996). “New Challenges to the Rationality Assumption.” In Kenneth Arrow, Enrico Colombatto, Mark Perlman and Christian Schmidt (eds.), The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kahneman, Daniel, Peter Wakker, and Rakesh Sarin. “Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility.” Quarterly Journal of Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  13. Loewenstein, George, and Nachum Sicherman. (1991). “Do Workers Prefer Increasing Wage Profiles?” Journal of Labor Economics 9:67–84.Google Scholar
  14. Loewenstein, George, and David Schkade. “Wouldn’t It Be Nice? Predicting Future Feelings.” In Daniel Kahneman, Edward Diener, and N. Schwarz (eds) Understanding Quality of Life: Scientific Perspectives on Enjoyment and Suffering. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  15. Robinson, J.,M. Higgins, and P. Bolyard. (1983). “Assessing Environmental Impacts on Health: A Role for Behavioral Science,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 4:41–53.Google Scholar
  16. Savage, Ian. (1993). “An Empirical Investigation into the Effect of Psychological Perceptions on theWillingness to Pay to Reduce Risk.” J. of Risk and Uncertainty 6:75–90.Google Scholar
  17. Sieff, E.M., Robin M. Dawes and George Loewenstein. “Anticipated versus Actual Reaction to HIV Test Results.” Forthcoming American Journal of Psychology.Google Scholar
  18. Slovic, Paul. (1991). “Beyond Numbers: A Broader Perspective on Risk Perception and Risk Communication.” In Deborah Mayo and Rachelle Hollander (eds.).Acceptable Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sunstein, Cass R. (1996). Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sunstein, Cass R. (1997). “Which Risks First?” University of Chicago Legal Forum (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  21. Sunstein, Cass R. (1993). The Partial Constitution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tengs, Tammy, et al. (1995). “Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost-Effectiveness,” Risk Analysis 15:369–384.Google Scholar
  23. Tolley, George, Donald Kenkel and Robert Fabian. (1995). Valuing Health For Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Viscusi, W. Kip (1992). Smoking. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Zeckhauser, Richard and Shepard. (1976). “Where Now For Saving Lives?” Law & Contemp Probs 40:5–41.Google Scholar
  26. Zeckhauser, Richard. (1996). “The Economics of Catastrophes.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 12:113–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
  1. 1.University of Chicago Law SchoolChicago

Personalised recommendations