Demand for number portability in the Korean telecommunications market: Contingent valuation approach

Journal of Global Information Management

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 43-66

  Park, Myeong Cheol ^a   Kim, Dan J ^b   Lee, Song Woo ^c  

^a Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON CLEAR LAKE   (United States)

^c Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method; Mobile telecommunications; Number portability

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; MARKETING; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE; TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES;

CONTINGENT VALUATION METHOD; MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS; NUMBER PORTABILITY;

TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY;

EID: 34147161869     PISSN: 10627375     EISSN: 15337995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jgim.2007010103     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Adelman, I., & Griliches, Z. (1961). On an index of quality changes. Journal of the American statistical Association, 56, 531-548.
2. Aoki, R., & Small, J. (1999). The Economics of number portability: Switching costs and two part tariffs. CRNEC Working Paper, University of Auckland, 30 pages, 1999
3. Bateman, I. J., & Turner R. K. (1993). Valuation of the environment methods and techniques: The contingent valuation method, sustainable environment economics and management: principle and practice. London: Belhaven.
4. Bishop, R. C., & Heberlein, T. A. (1997). Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 926-930.
5. Bohm, R (1972). Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Review, 3, 111-130.
6. Brown, T. C., Champ, P. A., Bishop, R. C., & McCollum, D. W. (1996). Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good? Land Economics, 72, 152-166.
7. Cameron, T. A., & James, M. D. (1987). Efficient estimation methods for use with closed-ended contingent valuation survey data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 69, 269-276.
8. Cameron, T. A., & Quiggin, J. (1994). Estimating using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27, 218-234.
9. Carson, R., Hanemann, W., & Mitchell, R. (1985). Determining the demand for public goods by simulating referendums at different tax prices. San Diego: University of California.
10. Carson, R. T., & Flores, N. E., & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173-210.
11. Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. (1996). Economics of outdoor recreation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future.
12. Cummings, R. G., & Brookshire, D. S., & Schuze, W. D. (1986). Valuing environmental goods: A state of the arts assessment of the contingent method. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
13. Diamond, P. A., & Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent valuation: Is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 45-64.
14. Gans, J. S., King, S. P., & Woodbridge, G. (2001). Numbers to the people: regulation, ownership, and local number portability. Information Economics and Policy, 13, 167-180.
15. Griffin, C. C., Briscoe, J., Singh, B., Ramasubban, R., & Bhatia, R. (1995). Contingent valuation and actual behavior: Predicting connections to new water system in the state of Kerala, India. The World Bank Economic Review, 9, 373-395.
16. Griliches, Z. (1971). Price index and quality change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with iscrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 332-341.
18. Hanemann, W. M., Loomis, J., & Kanninen, B. (1991). Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 1255-1263.
19. Herriges, J. A., & Shorgen, J. F. (1996). Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 112-131.
20. Hicks, J. (1946). Value and capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). A review of WTA/WTA studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 426-447.
22. Jones-Lee, M. W., Loomes, G., & Philips, P. (1995). Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: Contingent valuation vs. standard gambles. Oxford Economic Papers, 47(4), 676-695.
23. Kealy, M. J., Montgomery, M., & Dovidio, J. F. (1990). Reliability and predictive validity of contingent value: does the nature of the good matter? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 19, 244-263.
24. McFadden, D. & Leonard, G. K. (1993). Issues in the contingent valuation of environmental goods: Methodologies for data collection and analysis. In J. A. Hausman (Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment (pp. 165-215). Amsterdam: North Holland.
25. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using survey to value public goods-The contingent valuation method. Washington, D.C: Resources for the Future.
26. Neil, H. R., Cummings, R. G., Gandeton, P. T., Harrison, G. W., & MCGuckin, T. (1994). Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics, 70, 145-154.
27. NOAA. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58(10), 4601-4614.
28. Park, M. C., & Lee, S. W. (2002). Double marginalization problems: Evidence from he Korean fixed-to-mobile service market. Telecommunications Policy, 25(11), 607-621.
29. Peitz., M. (2002). Asymmetric access price regulation in telecommunications markets. Germany: University of Frankfurt.
30. Pinuccia Calia, P., & Strazzera, E. (2002). Bias and efficiency of single vs. double bound models for contingent valuation studies: A Monte Carlo analysis. Applied Economics, 32, 1329-1336.
31. Randall, A., & Stoll, J. R. (1980). Consumer's surplus in commodity space. American Economic Review, 70, 449-457.
32. Reinke, T. H. (1998). Local number portability and local loop competition. Telecommunications Policy, 22(1), 73-87.
33. Ridker, R. G., & Henning, J. A. (1967). The determinants of residential property values with special reference to air pollution. Review of Economics and Statistics, 49, 246-257.
34. Rosen, H. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation I pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 34-55.
35. Rowe, R. D. C., & Chestnut, L. G. (1982). The value of visibility: Economic theory and applications for air pollution control. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.
36. Sheehan, K. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: Areview. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, 6(2).
37. Shulze, W. D., d' Arge, R. C., & Broolshire, D. S. (1981). Valuing environmental commodities: Some recent experiments. Land Economics, 57, 151-169.
38. Watt, J. H. (1999). Information technologies in evaluation: Social, moral, epistemological, and practical implications (Vol. 84). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
39. Whittington, D., Lauria, D. T., & Mu, X. (1991). A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria. World Development, 19, 179-198.
40. Willig, R. D. (1976). Consumer's surplus without apology. American Economic Review, 66, 589-597.