Did we Overestimat the Value of Health?

Rafael Lalive

No 60, IEW - Working Papers from Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich

Abstract: Adam Smith's idea that wage differences reveal preferences for risk rests on firm theoretical foundations. This paper argues, however, that the standard approach to identify these differentials in practice may be flawed. Empirical practice usually identifies compensating wage differentials for risk by regressing individual wages on aggregate measures of risk, usually industry or occupation average risk. If jobs differ within industries or occupations, the ''aggregate approach'' may identify arbitrary compensating differentials for risk. In a dataset with precise information on job risk as well as aggregate risk, I demonstrate that using aggregate risk identifies wage differentials that are two to five times larger than wage differentials based on job risk information. This result is robust to controlling for time constant unobserved individual or job heterogeneity.

Keywords: value of life; value of health; compensating wage differentials; occupational illness (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: J17 J31 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-hea
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/51962/1/iewwp060.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Did We Overestimate the Value of Health? (2003)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:zur:iewwpx:060

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in IEW - Working Papers from Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Severin Oswald ().