Do as you say, say as you do: Evidence on gender differences in actual and stated contributions to public goods

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 127-139

  Brown, Kelly M ^a   Taylor, Laura O ^b  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b Andrew Young Sch Plcy Studs   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Experimental economics; Gender; H41; Public goods valuation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041728986     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-2681(00)00113-x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., Kerkvliet J. A randomized response approach to dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agriculture Economics. 79:1997;252-266.
2. Brown, K.M., 1999. Mode, population, and gender effects in experimental applications of contingent valuation. Ph.D. Thesis. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
3. Brown, K.M., Gurmu, S., Taylor, L.O., 1999. Mode and subject pool effects in experimental applications of contingent valuation using hurdle models. Working Paper. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
4. Brown-Kruse J., Hummels D. Gender effects in laboratory public goods contributions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 22:1993;255-267.
5. Cadsby C.B., Maynes E. Gender and free riding in a threshold public goods game: experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 34:1998;603-620.
6. Cameron T.A., Englin J. Respondent experience and contingent valuation of environmental goods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 33:1997;296-313.
7. Cummings R.G., Taylor L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review. 89(3):1999;649-665.
8. Cummings R.G., Harrison G.W., Rutstrom E.E. Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? American Economic Review. 85(1):1995;260-266.
9. Diamond P.A., Hausman J.A. Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8(4):1994;45-64.
10. Gilligan, C., 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
11. Gurmu S. Semi-parametric estimation of hurdle regression models with an application to medicaid utilization. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 14(4):1997;469-477.
12. Hanemann W.M. Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8(4):1994;19-43.
13. Nowell C., Tinkler S. The influence of gender on the provision of a public good. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 25:1994;25-36.
14. Seguino S., Stevens T., Lutz M. Gender and cooperative behavior: economic man rides alone. Feminist Economics. 2(1):1996;1-21.
15. Smith V.K., Mansfield C. Buying time: real and hypothetical offers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 36(3):1998;209-224.
16. Taylor L.O. Incentive compatible referenda and the valuation of environmental goods. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. 27(2):1998;1-8.