What is ‘fair compensation’ for death or injury?

This note demonstrates that David Friedman's recent assertion that, because full ex post compensation means that the potential injuror is overcompensating, ‘it follows that he will be overdeterred from imposing risk …’ cannot be supported, a priori, except in special cases. It is argued that this finding actually strengthens the case for compensation which is ‘fair’ as defined by Friedman.     

Analyzing the 2000 National Election Study

Nancy Burns Center for Political Studies 4246 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248 e-mail: nburns{at}umich.edu (corresponding author) Michael J. Ensley Department of Political Science, 210 Woodburn Hall, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 e-mail: ensley{at}indiana.edu Donald R. Kinder Center for Political Studies 4258 ISR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248 e-mail: drkinder{at}umich.edu In an earlier report, two of us (Bowers and Ensley, 2003, NationalElection Studies Technical Report, www.umich.edu/nes) provideda general framework for understanding the particular strategyoutlined by Fogarty et al. (in this issue). Fogarty et al.'sstrategy is to make the face-to-face variables more like therandom digit dial (RDD) telephone variables by trimming theends in order to reduce the variance of the face-to-face (FTF)variables. Perhaps some scholars will want the FTF variablesto look like the RDD variables, but that would be a fix fora specific research question. Given the significant differencesin the representativeness of the samples, the processes of surveynonresponse, and the quality and character of the responsesbetween data taken from a National Area Probability sample inperson and data taken from an RDD telephone sample, researchquestions involving comparisons with other years in the 50-yeartime series will require different remedies.