Sunstein Cass R
University of Chicago, Law School and Deparment of Political Science.
Duke Law J. 2004 Nov;54(2):385-445.
Each government agency uses a uniform figure to measure the value of a statistical life (VSL). This is a serious mistake. The very theory that underlies current practice calls for far more individuation of the relevant values. According to that theory, VSL should vary across risks. More controversially, VSL should vary across individuals -- even or especially if the result would be to produce a lower number for some people than for others. One practical implication is that a higher value should be given to programs that reduce cancer risks. Another is that government should use a higher VSL for programs that disproportionately benefit the wealthy -- and a lower VSL for programs that disproportionately benefit the poor. But there are two serious complications here. First, bounded rationality raises problems for the use of private willingness to pay, which underlies current calculations of VSL. Second, the beneficiaries of regulation sometimes pay only a fraction or even none of its cost; when this is so, the appropriate VSL for poor people might be higher, on distributional grounds, than market evidence suggests. An understanding of this point has implications for foundational issues about government regulation, including valuation of persons in poor and wealthy nations.
每个政府机构都使用统一的数字来衡量统计生命价值（VSL）。这是一个严重的错误。当前实践所依据的理论本身就要求对相关价值进行更多的个性化考量。根据该理论，VSL应因风险而异。更具争议的是，VSL应因人而异——即便（或者尤其是）这样做的结果是某些人的VSL数值低于其他人。一个实际影响是，对于降低癌症风险的项目应赋予更高的价值。另一个影响是，政府对于那些使富人受益过多的项目应采用更高的VSL，而对于那些使穷人受益过多的项目应采用较低的VSL。但这里存在两个严重的复杂情况。首先，有限理性给当前VSL计算所依据的私人支付意愿的使用带来了问题。其次，监管的受益者有时只承担部分甚至不承担监管成本；在这种情况下，从分配角度看，穷人的适当VSL可能高于市场证据所显示的数值。理解这一点对于政府监管的基础性问题有影响，包括对贫穷国家和富裕国家人口的估值。
