Experimental evidence on deliberate misrepresentation in referendum contingent valuation

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 387-401

  Polomé, Philippe ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Deliberate misrepresentation; Induced willingness to pay; Laboratory experiment; Provision rule; Referendum contingent valuation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042866023     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00024-6     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Amemiya T. 1985 Advanced Econometrics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
2. Blamey R.K. Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 34 1998 577-601
3. Bohm P. 1995 Can real environmental benefits really be estimated? An experimental economics perspective. In: Johansson, P.-O., Kriström, B., Mäler, K.-G. (Eds.), Current Issues in Environmental Economics. Manchester University Press, New York, pp. 98-116
4. Cameron A.C. Trivedi P.K. 1998 Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
5. Carson R.T. Flores N.E. Meade N.F. 1996 Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence. Discussion Paper 96-36, University of California at San Diego, San Diego.
6. Carson R.T. Groves T. Machina M.J. 2000 Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Department of Economics, University of California at San Diego, Draft available at http://www.weber.ucsd.edu/~rcarson.
7. Cummings G.R. Osborne Taylor L. Does realism matter in contingent valuation surveys? Land Economics 74 1998 203-215
8. Cummings R.G. Elliot S. Harrison G.W. Murphy J. Are hypothetical referenda incentive compatible? Journal of Political Economy 105 1997 609-621
9. Harrison G.W. 1996 Experimental Economics and Contingent Valuation. Department of Economics, University of South Carolina, Draft available at http://www.dmsweb.badm.sc.edu/glenn.
10. Harrison G.W. Beekman R.L. Brown L.B. Clements L.A. McDaniel T.M. Odom S.L. Williams M.B. 1999 Environmental damage assessment with hypothetical surveys: the calibration approach. In: Boman, M., Brännlund, R., Kriström, B. (Eds.), Topics in Environmental Economics. Kluwer Academic Press, Amsterdam (Chapter 13).
11. Ledyard J.O. 1995 Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel, J.H., Roth, A.E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 111-194
12. NOAA Panel (Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Schuman, H.), 1993. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register, No. 58, p. 4602-14.
13. Schulze W. McClelland G. Waldman D. Lazo J. 1996 Sources of bias in contingent valuation. In: Bjornstad, D.J., Kahn, J.R. (Eds.), The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 97-116
14. Smith V.L. Experimental economics: induced value theory American Economic Review 66 1976 274-279
15. Sugden R. 1999 Alternatives to the neo-classical theory of choice. In: Bateman, I.J., Willis, K.G. (Eds.), Valuing Environmental Preferences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 152-180
16. Taylor L.O. McKee M. Laury S.K. Cummings R.G. Induce-value tests of the referendum voting mechanism Economics Letters 71 2001 61-65