Hypothetical bias and willingness to accept

Economics Letters

Volumn 78, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 423-430

  Nape, Steven ^a   Frykblom, Peter ^b   Harrison, Glenn W ^c   Lesley, James C ^c  

^a RANDOLPH MACON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Damage assessment; Experiments; Willingness to accept

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037357209     PISSN: 01651765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0165-1765(02)00250-1     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Blackburn, McK., Harrison, G.W., Rutström, E.E., 1994. Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76 (5), 1084-1088.
2. Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., Rutstr̈om, E.E., 1995. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive compatible? American Economic Review 85 (1), 260-266.
3. Haab, T.C., Huang, J.-C., Whitehead, J.C., 1999. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? A comment. Journal of Political Economy 107 (1), 186-196.
4. Hanemann, W.M., 1991. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? American Economic Review 81, 635-647.
5. Harrison, G.W., Beekman, R.L., Brown, L.B., Clements, L.A., McDaniel, T.M., Odom, S.L., Williams, M., 1999. Environmental damage assessment with hypothetical surveys: the calibration approach. In: Boman, M., Brännlund, R., Kriström, B. (Eds.), Topics in Environmental Economics. Kluwer Academic, Amsterdam.
6. Hoffman, E., Spitzer, M.L., 1993. Willingness to pay vs. willingness to accept: legal and economic implications. Washington University Law Quarterly 71 (1), 59-114.
7. Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J., Kliebenstein, J.B., 1994. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. American Economic Review 84 (1), 255-270.