ICYMI: Valuing the Benefits of Reducing Firearm Violence in the U.S.
There's widespread support for stronger regulations and programs to reduce gun violence. But talk is cheap.
While the gun lobby would have us believe that Americans are clamoring for more and more guns, recent polling has shown that a majority of Americans see our gun problem as a real epidemic, support more common sense gun regulation, and are even willing to pay a little more in taxes to help alleviate the problem.
That last aspect specifically — and a recent poll backing it up — were addressed in a post three colleagues wrote for us that posted last week here at Armed With Reason.
In case you missed it, check it out below.
Valuing the Benefits of Reducing Firearm Violence in the U.S.
By: Philip J. Cook, Marc Jeuland, Jens Ludwig
Whether it’s a gunman’s attack on our kids’ school, the assassination of a prominent official, or the routine daily violence that burdens many communities, gun violence in its many forms is all too prominent in the news and our imaginations.
On reflection we can come up with a list of ways in which gun violence, and the threats posed by gun violence, detract from our quality of life. A 2022 national survey conducted by AP/NORC asked a cross section of American adults whether they thought gun violence was a serious problem in their communities.
About half the respondents thought that it was serious (or they didn’t know). A remarkable 43% of all respondents thought it at least somewhat likely that they would be victims of gun violence within the next five years. And over one-third said that the threat of gun violence had been an important consideration in choosing where to live.
The survey found widespread support for stronger regulations and programs to reduce gun violence. But talk is cheap.
It’s easy to agree to provide the police with more resources for shooting investigations or support school-based programs to redirect at-risk youth, if there’s no price tag. But we added questions to this survey to find out whether the public is actually willing to pay for such programs, and if so how much.
Using a well-established method called “contingent valuation,” we asked whether they would vote for or against a ballot measure that would raise their taxes by a specified amount, with the money used to fund programs that would reduce gun violence in their states by 20%.
Their answers implied that most people were willing to pay something, and a relatively few were willing to pay a lot. The average willingness to pay was $744 per household per year, implying a national total of almost $100 billion.
Economists would say that that is the “monetized” value of all the benefits of that 20% reduction. Some of those benefits would be as tangible as increased property values and commercial activity in highly impacted communities, but still more important would be greater peace of mind, less shared trauma, and a higher quality of life overall.
The contingent-valuation method is widely used by economists in conducting evaluations of environmental regulations and programs. But the method is also appropriate for evaluating gun violence prevention measures.
The basic concept is a version of “consumer sovereignty,” suggesting that the total value of reduced violence is the sum of individual values. This method is appropriate for an evaluation of a proposed program or regulation. It is forward looking and comprehensive, inclusive in principle of all the public’s concerns as they perceive them.
The main rival to the contingent-valuation method is the “cost of illness” (COI) method used by public health professionals in placing a monetary value on disease and injury. That method is relatively easy to compute, but incomplete and not based directly on individual preferences. A COI estimate for gun violence from 2022 was just half of ours.
The burden by this measure is very heavily concentrated among young Black males, following the actual pattern of homicide victimization. But our contingent-evaluation method indicates that the burden — as measured by willingness to pay for a reduction — is much more broadly experienced by the American public.
Philip J. Cook is Professor Emeritus of Public Policy and Economics at Duke University. He is research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), elected member of the National Academy of Medicine, and 2020 winner of the Stockholm Prize in Criminology.
Marc Jeuland is Professor in Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the Duke Global Health Institute. He is an environmental economist whose research interests include non-market valuation, water and sanitation, environmental health, and related topics. His research on environment and economic development focus on sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
Jens Ludwig is the Bergman Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago and founding director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab. His current research focuses on how behavioral science and data science can help solve social problems. He is research associate with NBER and elected member of the National Academy of Medicine.
Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay