The paper demonstrates that a simple method exists, by which easily accessible information aggregated in national statistics can be used to derive acceptance criteria for use in cost effectiveness evaluations. Cost effectiveness assessment is normally used for risks that should be made as low as reasonably practicable. These are risks, which are neither intolerably high nor negligible. Examples of users of such criteria are the national and international regulators that implement safety related regulations and industrial companies that operate in an industrial self-regulation regime and therefore define and implement their own risk control strategies. The criteria are derived by combining societal indicators published by the United Nations development program and national statistics. It is observed that in an unregulated market, individuals invest in their own safety or in the safety of their own family. In the same way as the societal indicators indicate how much the regulator should use on safety, the data on how much individuals spend on safety when the decision is up to them indicate when the regulator should not regulate. The idea is then that when individuals make better use of the available resources there is no reason to regulate. As a last point, when it comes to cost effectiveness, the paper demonstrates that situations may well occur for which a wealthy country should invest in safety and a poor country should not.

1.
IMO, 1997, “Interim Guidelines for the Use of Formal Safety Assessment to the IMO Rule-Making Process,” MSC Circ. 829 and MEPC Circ. 335, 1997.
2.
IMO, 2002, “Guidelines for Formal Safety Assessment to the IMO Rule-Making Process,” MSC Circ. 1023 and MEPC Circ. 392, April 2002.
3.
Lind, N. C., 1996, “Safety Principles and Safety Culture,” Proceedings, 3rd International Summit on Safety at Sea, Conference organized by Norwegian Petroleum Society, Oslo, Norway, 1996.
4.
Natwani, J. S., Lind, N. C., and Pandey, M. D., 1997, “Affordable Safety By Choice: The Life Quality Method.” Institute for Risk Research, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
5.
Skjong, R., and Ronold, K. O., 1998, “Societal Indicators and Risk Acceptance,” Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, OMAE 1998.
6.
Hahn, R. W., Lutter, R. W., and Viscusi, W. K., 2000, “Do Federal Regulations Reduce Mortality,” AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
7.
WHO, 2000, World Health Organization “World Health Report,” http://www.who.int
8.
UNDP, United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report, Oxford University Press 1990.
9.
Ditlevsen, O., 2001, “Decision Modeling and Acceptance Criteria,” Submitted to Structural Safety October 2001.
10.
Skjong, R., and Eknes, M. L., 2001, “Economic Activity and Societal Risk Acceptance,” ESREL 2001, 16th–20th September, 2001, Turin, Italy.
11.
Skjong, R., and Eknes, M. L., 2002, “Societal Risk and Societal Benefits,” Risk Decision and Policy (2002), Vol. 7, pp 1–11, Published by Cambridge University Press.
12.
CIA, 2001, “The World Fact Book, 2001” http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
13.
DETR, 1998, “1998 Valuation of the Benefits of Prevention of Road Accidents and Casualties,” Highways Economics Note No 1: 1998, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadsafety/hen198/index.htm
14.
FHWA, 1994, “Motor Vehicle Accident Costs,” US Federal Highway Administration, Technical Advisory T7570.2 www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t75702
15.
HSE, 1999, “Reducing Risks, Protecting People.” Discussion document. UK Health & Safety Executive.
16.
Railtrack, 1998, “Railway Group Safety Plan 1998–99,” Safety & Standards Directorate, Railtrack, London.
17.
Rose, J., 1994, “Risk Assessment—To Quantify or Not to Quantify? Is That the Question?” Conference on Practically Implementing Safety Case Regulations in the Transport Industry, IBC, London, March 1994.
18.
Evans, 1998, “Automatic Train Protection and the Valuation of Statistical Life.” ESRA Newsletter, January 1998.
19.
Norway, 1996, Stortingsproposisjon No. 1 1996–97 (In Norwegian).
20.
Keeney
,
R. L.
,
1990
, “
Mortality Risks Induced by Economic Expenditure
,”
Risk Anal
,
pp.
147
159
.
21.
Lutter
,
R.
, and
Morrall
, III,
J. F.
,
1994
, “
Health-Health Analysis: A New Way to Evaluate Health and Safety Regulations
,”
J. Risk and Uncertainty
,
8
,
43
66
.
22.
Lutter
,
R.
,
Morrall
, III,
J. F.
, and
Viscusi
,
W. K.
,
1999
, “
The Cost-per-Life-Saved Cutoff for Safety-Enhancing Regulations
,”
Econom. Inquiry
,
37
(
4
),
599
608
.
23.
Keeney
,
R. L.
,
1994
, “
Mortality Risks Induced by the Cost of Regulations
,”
J. Risk and Uncertainty
,
8
,
95
110
.
24.
Pritchett
,
L.
, and
Summers
,
L.
,
1996
, “
Wealthier Healthier
,”
J. Hum. Resour
,
31
(
4
),
840
868
.
25.
Keeney
,
R. L.
,
1997
, “
Estimating Fatality Induced by Economic Costs of Regulations
,”
J. Risk and Uncertainty
,
14
,
5
23
.
26.
Rackwitz, R., 2000, “A New Approach for Setting Target Reliabilities,” Safety, Risk and Reliability Trends in Engineering.
27.
Skjong, R., Bitner-Gregersen, E., Cramer, E., Croker, A., Hagen, O̸., Korneliussen, G., Lacasse, S., Lotsberg, I., Nadim, F., and Ronold, K. O., 1996, “Guidelines for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis—General” DNV Report No 95—2018. http://research.dnv.com/skj
28.
Skjong, R., 2002, “Setting Target Reliabilities by Marginal Safety Returns,” Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Workshop on Reliability Based Code Calibration, Zurich, Switzerland, March 2002. Available at http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/ and http://research.dnv.com/skj
29.
Skjong, R., and Bitner-Gregersen, E., 2002, “Cost Effectiveness of Hull Girder Safety,” OMAE-2002-28494.
30.
Tengs
,
T. O.
,
Adams
,
M. E.
,
Pliskin
,
J. S.
,
Gelb-Safran
,
D.
,
Siegel
,
J. E.
,
Weinstein
,
M. C.
, and
Graham
,
J. D.
,
1995
, “
Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost Effectiveness
,”
Risk Anal
,
15
, pp.
369
390
.
31.
Tengs, T. O., and Graham, J. D., 1996, “The Opportunity Cost of Haphazard Social Investments in Life-Saving.” The Risks, Costs and Lives Saved: Getting Better Results From Regulation. Edited by Robert W. Hahn. New York and Washington DC: Oxford University Press.
You do not currently have access to this content.