After three decades of experience with extensive government regulation and oversight of health, safety and environmental matters, we have reason to believe that those measures have largely failed to fulfill their initial promise, but many of the initial promises were infeasible goals of a "zero-risk" society. Economic findings with respect to risk-risk tradeoffs highlight the fallacies inherent in government's zero-risk mentality. Agencies that make an unbounded financial commitment to safety frequently are sacrificing individual lives. There continues to be major opportunities to improve regulatory performance by targeting existing inefficiencies and using market mechanisms (rather than strict command-and-control mechanisms) to achieve regulatory goals.
[1]
Richard H. Thaler,et al.
The Value of Saving a Life: Evidence from the Labor Market
,
1976
.
[2]
Lester B. Lave,et al.
A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Auto Safety Features
,
1970
.
[3]
R. Zeckhauser,et al.
The perils of prudence: how conservative risk assessments distort regulation.
,
1988,
Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.
[4]
R. Zeckhauser,et al.
Procedures for valuing lives.
,
1975,
Public policy.
[5]
G. Guenther.
Occupational Safety and Health Act.
,
1972,
Health devices.
[6]
S. Peltzman.
REGULATION OF AUTOMOBILE SAFETY
,
1975
.
[7]
G. Calabresi.
The costs of accidents : a legal and economic analysis
,
1971
.