Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:08:03.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From the “Value of Life” to the Economics and Ethics of Population: the Path is Purely Methodological

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Jacques H. Drèze
Jacques H. Drèze*
Affiliation:
Université Catholique de Louvain
Get access

Summary

The paper discusses the relationship between two problems, namely: (i) assigning a value to reduction in death probabilities, i.e. defining a « value of life », and (ii) assigning a value to changes in population, i.e. defining guidelines for the ethics and economics of population. While, for Broome, “in one sense, prolonging a person’s life and adding a new person to the world are alternative ways of doing the same things”, this paper argues that the two problems are quite distinct, in the sense that a precise answer to the first provides no guide live at all for second, and conversely. There is no inconsinstency in providing safety according to a high “value of life” while giving population growth a negative value. But there is a methodological link: both problemes have a public choice dimension, and can therefore be approached along parallel methodological lines. With respect to the economics and ethics of population, the paper offers some defense of the Pareto criterion among the living, and comments on the practice and theory of social choise.

Résumé

Résumé

L’article discute le lien entre deux problèmes : (i) donner une valeur à des réductions de probabilité de décès, c.à.d. définir une « valeur de la vie humaine » ; et (ii) donner une valeur à des changements de population, c.à.d. fonder une analyse éthique et économique de la démographie. Alors que, pour Broome, « en un sens, prolonger l’existence d’un vivant ou ajouter un nouveau né à la population mondiale représentent deux façons alternatives de faire la même chose », cet article soutient que les deux problèmes sont nettement distincts en ce sens qu’une réponse précise au premier ne fournit aucune indication pour le second, et vice-versa. Il n’est pas incohérent de promouvoir la sécurité conformément à une valeur élevée de la vie humaine, tout en attachant une valeur négative à la croissance démographique. Mais il existe un lien méthodologique: les deux problèmes relèvent du choix social, et à ce titre d’approches méthodologiques parallèles. Concernant l’analyse éthique et économique de la démographie, l’article défend le critère de Pareto entre vivants, et discute la pratique et la théorie du choix social.

Keywords

025841851025841851
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , 1992 , pp. 147 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 1992 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

(*)

This paper is an extended version of my discussion of Broome (1992) at the Symposium on the Value of Life, Louvain-la-Neuve, December 1991. I thank Philippe Van Parijs for inviting me to discuss Broome’s paper at the Symposium and for suggesting many improvements to the written presentation.

References

REFERENCES

Abraham, C. and Thédié, J. (1960), Le prix d’une vie humaine dans les décisions économiques, Revue Française de Recherche Opérationnelle, pp. 157–168.Google Scholar
Allais, M. (1947), Economie et Intérêt, Imprimerie Nationale, Paris.Google Scholar
Allais, M. (1953), Généralisation des théories de l’équilibre économique général et du rendement social au cas du risque in Econométrie, pp. 81–110, CNRS, Paris.Google Scholar
Arrow, K.J. (1951), Social Choice and Individual Values, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, Th. C. (1982), When is a Man’s Life Worth More Than his Human Capital? in Jones-Lee, M. Ed., The Value of Life and Safety, pp. 3–26, North-Holand, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Blackorby, L. and Donaldson, D. (1984), Social Criteria for Evaluating Population Changes, Journal of Public Economics 25, pp. 13–33.Google Scholar
Borch, K. (1962), Equilibrium in a Reinsurance Market, Econometrica 30 (3), pp. 424–444.Google Scholar
Broome, J. (1992), The Value of Living, Recherches Economiques de Louvain, in this issue.Google Scholar
Dehez, P. and Dréze, J.H. (1982), State-Dependent Utility, the Demand for Insurance and the Value of Safety in Jones-Lee, M. Ed., The Value of Life and Safety, pp. 41–65, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Dréze, J.H. (1962) L’utilité sociale d’une vie humaine, Revue Française de Recherche Opérationnelle, 23, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Dréze, J.H. and De la Vallee Poussin, D. (1971), A Tâtonnement Process for Public Goods, Review of Economie Studies, 38, pp. 133–150.Google Scholar
Fleming, M. (1952), A Cardinal Concept of Welfare, Quarterly Journal of Economies, pp. 366–384.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. (1955), Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility, Journal of Political Economy, pp.309–321.Google Scholar
Jones-Lee, M. (1976), The Value of Life: An Economic Analysis, Martin Robinson, London.Google Scholar
Jones-Lee, M. (1989), The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Malinvaud, E. (1971), Procedures for the Determination of a Program of Public Consumption, European Economic Review, pp. 187–217.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. (1954), The Pure Theory of Public Expenditures, Review of Economics and Statistics, 36, pp. 387–389.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. (1958),An Exact Consumption-Loan Model of Interest With or Without the Social Contrivance of Money, Journal of Political Economy 46, 6, pp. 467–482.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1970), Collective Choice and Social Welfare, Holden Day, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1991), Welfare Economics and Population Ethics, Paper preSENted to the Nobel Jubilee Symposium on Population, Development and Welfare, Lund University, December 1991.Google Scholar
Tulkens, H. (1978), Dynamic Processes for Public Goods, Journal of Public Economics 9, pp. 163–201.Google Scholar
Vickrey, W. (1945), Measuring Marginal Utility by Reaction to Risk, Econometrica, pp. 215–236.Google Scholar