Virginia's Natural Bridge Navigation Blogroll
Search

Archives Credits

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2

Site design by
Sekimori

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
 
The Commons
Analyze This: Weighing Risk as a Necessary Evil
Posted by Max Borders  ·   8 September 2004  ·  

Ken Green of the Fraser Institute gives a solid overview of risk analysis for those who think federal monies are in infinite supply. The crux:

Activists tend to disdain the idea of basing policy on traditional risk analysis and benefit-cost analysis, preferring to invoke the “precautionary principle” as a rationale for addressing every risk with every possible resource at all times. It’s a high-minded ideal. But common sense tells us that it also isn’t possible. With finite resources and competing demands, there will be some selection process that allocates resources to risk-reduction efforts. The only question is whether or not it will be a rational one - that is - one that avoids waste.

Still, I can already hear the chorus of lamentations: "how can you put a price tag on a human life?" (Limited government budgets designed to "save lives" make utilitarians out of us... or at least they should.)

Comments
  1. To the chorus of lamentations regarding "how can you put a value on a human life" more people need to understand that IS NOT what risk analysis does--but rather quantifies the value of a change in a probability (of for example premature mortality)--and that EVeRYONE does precisely that on a daily basis when they buy life insurance, car insurance, or health insurance.

    Most troublesome is the lack of understanding of the basic aspects of risk--the general population doesn't seem to comprehend the difference between acute and chronic risks (i.e. high probability low impacts vs low probability high impacts)much less that risk reduction comes at a cost--which inherently increases risk somewhere else..

    Posted by: Tom Tanton at September 8, 2004 10:59 AM
  2. Every decision we make that involves our health, our safety, or the size of the estate we'll leave to our families and favorite charities when we die involves putting a value on human life. (Ie, multiply the value of my life by the probability of being killed in a car crash on the way to work, and measure it against the cost of getting fired for not showing up, and "go to work today" wins...it's a subconscious process, but it's "putting a value on human life" nevertheless.)

    The fact that, in most of those decisions, the value is a question of opportunity cost and is thus usually not denominated in US Dollars does not change their basic nature.

    Posted by: Matt at September 9, 2004 02:36 AM