Conservative dichotomous choice responses in the active policy setting: DC rejections below WTP

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 223-246

  Farmer, Michael C ^a   Lipscomb, Clifford A ^b  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VALDOSTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation; Multinomial logit; Referendum incentives

Indexed keywords

COSTS; CUSTOMER SATISFACTION; PUBLIC POLICY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; MULTINOMIAL LOGIT; REFERENDUM INCENTIVES;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; EMISSION INVENTORY; INCENTIVE; MARKET SYSTEM; POLICY MAKING; POLICY STRATEGY; RESPONSE ANALYSIS; SURVEY;

EID: 38849138633     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10640-007-9106-7     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alberini A, Kanninen B, Carson R (1997) Modeling response effects in dichotomous choice contingent value data. Land Economics 73:309-24
2. Alberini A, Veronesi M, Cooper JC (2005) Detecting starting point bias in dichotomous-choice contingent valuation surveys. FEEM Working Paper No. 119.05
3. Ash M, Murphy JJ, Stevens TH (2004) Hypothetical bias in dichotomous choice contingent value studies. University of Massachusetts Resource Economics Working Paper No. 2004-9
4. Bendor J, Taylor S, Van Gaalen R (1985) Bureaucratic expertise versus legislative authority: a model of deception and monitoring in budgeting. Am Polit Sci Rev 79:1041-1060
5. Bohara AK, Berrens RP, McKee M (1998) Effects of total cost and group-size information on willingness to pay responses: open-ended vs. dichotomous-choice. J Environm Econ Manage 35(2):142-163
6. Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D (2003) Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 46(2):353-613
7. Bulte E, Gerking S, List JA, de Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manage 49(2):330-342
8. Burton AC, Carson KS, Chilton SM, Hutchinson WG, (2003) An experimental investigation of explanations for inconsistencies in responses to second offers in double referenda. Journal of Environ Econ Manage 46(3):472-489
9. Cameron TA (1988) A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manage 15(3):355-793
10. Cameron TA, Quiggin J (1994) Estimation using contingent valuation data from a dichotomous choice with follow-up questionnaire. J Environ Econ Manage 27(3):218-234
11. Cummings R, Harrison G, Ruström E (1995) Homegrown values and hypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible?. Am Econ Rev 85(1):260-266
12. Cummings R, Taylor L (1999) Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am Econ Rev 83(3):649-665
13. Eavey CL, Miller GJ (1984) Bureaucratic agenda control: imposition or bargaining?. Am Polit Sci Rev 78:719-733
14. Filimon R, (1982) Asymmetric information and agenda control. J Public Econ 17:51-70
15. Fischhoff B, (1982) Debiasing. In: Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. Judgment under uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, New York: pp 422-444
16. Fort RD (1988) The median voter, setters, and non-repeated construction bond issues. Public Choice 56(3):213-312
17. Green H, Tunstall SM (1991) The evaluation of river quality improvements by the contingent valuation method. Appl Econ 23: 1135-1146
18. Harrison GW, (2006) Experimental Evidence on Alternative Environmental Valuation Methods. Environ Resour Econ 34:125-162
19. Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52:1219-1240
20. Hensher, DA, Greene, WH (2001) The mixed logit model: the state of practice and warnings for the unwary. Working paper. Institute of Transport Studies, The University of Sydney
21. Hoehn JP, Randall A (1987) A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 14:226-247
22. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JF (2000) Stated choice methods and analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
23. Lusk JL, (2003) Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness to pay for golden rice. Am J Agric Econ 85(4):840
24. McFadden D, Kahneman D (1995) Referendum contingent values, anchoring and willingness to pay for public goods. Working paper. Department of Economics, UC-Berkeley
25. Murphy JJ, Stevens TH (2004) Contingent valuation, hypothetical bias and Experimental Economics. Agric Nat Resour Rev 33(2):182-192
26. Romer T, Rosenthal H (1979a) The elusive median voter. J public Econ 12:143-170
27. Romer T, Rosenthal H (1979b) Bureaucrats versus voters: on the political economy of resource allocation by direct democracy. Q J Econ 93:563-587
28. Romer T, Rosenthal H (1982) Median voters or budget maximizers: evidence from school expenditure referenda. Econ Inq 20:556-578
29. Schkade DA, Payne JW, (1994) How People Respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J Environ Econ Manage 26(1):88-109
30. Shapiro P, Sonstelie I (1982) Representative voter or bureaucratic manipulation: an examination of public finances in California before and after proposition 13. Public Choice 39(1):113-142
31. Sugden R (2005) Coping with preference anomalies in cost-benefit analysis: a market-simulation approach. Environ and Resour Econ 32:129-160
32. Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
33. US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000) Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations: automotive service technicians and mechanics. 2000 state occupational employment and wage estimates: Georgia. Occupational Employment Statistics, Washington, DC
34. Whittington D, Briscoe J, Mu X, Barron W, (1990) Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the use of contingent valuation surveys in southern Haiti. Economic Dev Cult Change 38(2):293-312
35. Zeckhauser R (1973) Voting systems, honest preferences, and pareto optimality. Am Polit Sci Rev 67:934-946