To Örebro University

Findings in the traffic safety literature suggest that people value traffic risk reductions less when framed as a public good (e.g. infrastructure improvements) compared to when framed as a private good (e.g. personal safety equipment). This study contributes to this literature by reporting empirical evidence for the importance of controlling for the attributes of the goods used in such valuations. We focus on risks faced by vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians and compare valuations across private and public goods that vary in their attributes. When the goods are of an identical nature, we find no significant difference in valuations, resolving the controversy in previous findings. We find significant effects on valuations from using private or public provision, from offering the good as voluntary or mandated in use, and from changing the framing of the good between the private and the public versions. This adds further weight to the importance of controlling for many attributes.

Infrastrukturinvesteringar ses ofta som ett viktigt medel att påverka den ekonomiska tillväxten. Denna policyrapport inleds med en kort översikt över den svenska debatten och speciellt kring svårigheten att förena det mikroekonomiska perspektivet med det makroekonomiska. Därefter ges en kort översikt om vilken kunskap som finns idag om huruvida satsningar på infrastruktur verkligen bidrar till ökad tillväxt. Rapporten utmynnar sedan i några avslutande rekommendationer riktade till beslutsfattare som grundas på professor Lars Hultkrantz egna insikter efter att över en längre tid följt både forskningen och den svenska debatten kring infrastrukturplaneringen.

This paper compares the value per statistical life (VSL) in the context of suicide prevention to that of prevention of traffic fatalities. We conducted a contingent valuation survey with questions on willingness to pay (WTP) in both contexts by administering a web questionnaire to 1038 individuals aged 18 to 80. We conjectured that WTP for a given impact on the number of fatalities would be lower for suicide prevention because suicide, at least to some degree, is the result of individuals' own decisions. However, this hypothesis was not supported by the within- or between-sample estimates of WTP or by responses to direct questions. Hence, no support is provided for the use of a lower valuation of the impact of suicide prevention than for risk-reducing programs in other fields, such as traffic safety. This implies that the same VSL should be used for evaluating suicide prevention interventions and for risk-reducing programs in other policy areas and funds for the prevention of fatalities should be directed to the area with the lowest cost per life saved.