If someone is going to suggest that people elsewhere should “be allowed” to use materials that we have banned here for reasons of public health, then they should also have to address the implicit valuation of human life that makes such a political statement appear “logical” and apolitical.
Now to see if the folks at Environmental Economics let me have it over this . . . they are, after all, real economists.
The only concern I have with this post is the implication that we are "real" economists. That is an outrage!
Seriously though, the trouble the value of statistical life (VSL) calculations is they are based on willingness (and ability) to pay. Since environmental quality (and health and safety) is a normal good -- people want more if it when their incomes increase -- environmental quality (and health and safety) will be valued lower in places that have lower incomes. This naturally leads to lower VSL calculations and the policy implications are clear. The net benefits of many policies will be positive in rich countries and negative in less rich countries. But, this is not because lives are worth less in less rich countries but because less rich countries can't afford as much environmental quality (and health and safety) as rich countries. Sad, but true.
