I’m somewhere in the middle. I would probably enforce certain minimum safety standards, but they wouldn’t be full-strength developed country standards.
I can’t see a compelling reason to impose the specific safety standards of (e.g.) the United States on factories in developing countries. Regulators consider the value of a statistical life in deciding whether to impose a specific requirement—and at least one federal agency has that value pegged at over $13MM. The underlying methodology reflects the economic situation in the United States—e.g., by asking people how much they would be willing to pay to reduce their risk of death (or demand in order to increase their risk of death), by looking at how much higher pay is in high-risk occupations like mining, by looking at lost earnings, and so on. There is no reason to believe those views are universally correct or wise in other contexts.
Employers in societies that do not agree with American sensibilities are not engaging in “bad behaviour” merely because they follow local norms rather than American ones. At least for countries with reasonably functioning democratic systems (or which we otherwise think are doing a respectable job governing in the interests of their citizens), it’s not clear to me why we shouldn’t usually defer to the level of safety that the society has determined to be generally appropriate. (By generally appropriate, I mean across the society as a whole—I would not defer to regulations for industries that were more permissive than what was required in other regulatory domains).
There is no reason to believe those views are universally correct or wise in other contexts.
Not only this, but there is also reason to believe people in lower income countries will be less willing to pay for safety because they have less money. Someone spending 100 $/d can afford 2 $/d to decrease their risk of death by e.g. 1 %. However, someone spending 2 $/d (close to the maximum income of people living in extreme poverty of 2.15 $/d) cannot afford 2 $/d because this would decrease their available spending to 0, which could lead to death from starvation without the support of others.
I’m somewhere in the middle. I would probably enforce certain minimum safety standards, but they wouldn’t be full-strength developed country standards.
I can’t see a compelling reason to impose the specific safety standards of (e.g.) the United States on factories in developing countries. Regulators consider the value of a statistical life in deciding whether to impose a specific requirement—and at least one federal agency has that value pegged at over $13MM. The underlying methodology reflects the economic situation in the United States—e.g., by asking people how much they would be willing to pay to reduce their risk of death (or demand in order to increase their risk of death), by looking at how much higher pay is in high-risk occupations like mining, by looking at lost earnings, and so on. There is no reason to believe those views are universally correct or wise in other contexts.
Employers in societies that do not agree with American sensibilities are not engaging in “bad behaviour” merely because they follow local norms rather than American ones. At least for countries with reasonably functioning democratic systems (or which we otherwise think are doing a respectable job governing in the interests of their citizens), it’s not clear to me why we shouldn’t usually defer to the level of safety that the society has determined to be generally appropriate. (By generally appropriate, I mean across the society as a whole—I would not defer to regulations for industries that were more permissive than what was required in other regulatory domains).
Thanks, Jason! I agree.
Not only this, but there is also reason to believe people in lower income countries will be less willing to pay for safety because they have less money. Someone spending 100 $/d can afford 2 $/d to decrease their risk of death by e.g. 1 %. However, someone spending 2 $/d (close to the maximum income of people living in extreme poverty of 2.15 $/d) cannot afford 2 $/d because this would decrease their available spending to 0, which could lead to death from starvation without the support of others.