Does the WTA/WTP ratio diminish as the severity of a health complaint is reduced? Testing for smoothness of the underlying utility of wealth function

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 1-24

  Chilton, Susan ^a   Jones Lee, Michael ^a   McDonald, Rebecca ^a   Metcalf, Hugh ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

VSL; Willingness to accept; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862775058     PISSN: 08955646     EISSN: 15730476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11166-012-9145-5     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Arrow, K. (1971). Essays in the theory of risk-bearing. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
2. Augenblick, N., & Nicholson, S. (2009). Choice fatigue: The effect of making previous choices on decision making. Working paper, University of California, Berkeley.
3. Bateman, I. J., Munro, A., Rhodes, B., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1997). A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 479-505.
4. Brown, T. C. (2005). Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for WTA-WTP disparity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57, 367-379.
5. Carson, R., & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environmental & Resource Economics, 37(1), 181-210.
6. Carthy, T., Chilton, S., Covey, J., Hopkins, L., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., et al. (1998). On the contingent valuation of safety and the safety of contingent valuation: part 2-the CV/SG 'chained' approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17(3), 187-213.
7. Cherry, T. L., Crocker, T. D., & Shogren, J. F. (2003). Rationality spillovers. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45(1), 63-84.
8. Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: an experimental investigation. The Economic Journal, 108(450), 1362-1380.
9. Evans, W. N., & Viscusi, W. K. (1991). Estimation of state-dependent utility functions using survey data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(1), 94-104.
10. Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). Utility analysis of choices involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56(4), 279-304.
11. Guria, J., Leung, J., Jones-Lee, M. J., & Loomes, G. (2005). The willingness to accept value of statistical life relative to the willingness to pay value: evidence and policy implications. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32(1), 113-127.
12. Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? The American Economic Review, 81(3), 635-647.
13. Horowitz, J. K., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). A review of WTA/WTP studies. Review of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(3), 426-447.
14. Isoni, A., Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (2011). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the "endowment effect", subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: comment. The American Economic Review, 101(2), 991-1011.
15. Jones-Lee, M. W. (1976). The value of life: An economic analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Jones-Lee, M. W. (1989). The economics of safety and physical risk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
17. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350.
19. Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2009). Preference reversals and disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to accept in repeated markets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(3), 374-387.
20. Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the "endowment effect", subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. The American Economic Review, 95(3), 530-545.
21. Savage, D. J., & Waldman, D. M. (2008). Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(3), 351-371.
22. Shogren, J. F., Shin, S. Y., Hayes, D. J., & Kliebenstein, J. B. (1994). Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. The American Economic Review, 84(1), 255-270.
23. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 332-382.
24. Sugden, R. (1999). Alternatives to the neoclassical theory of choice. In I. Bateman & K. Willis (Eds.), Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EC and developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061.
26. Viscusi, W. K. (1978). Wealth effects and earnings premiums for job hazards. Review of Economics and Statistics, 60(3), 408-416.
27. Viscusi, W. K., & Aldy, J. E. (2003). The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27(1), 5-76.
28. Viscusi, W. K., & Huber, J. (2012). Reference-dependent valuations of risk: why willingness-to-accept exceeds willingness-to-pay. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 44(1), 19-44.
29. Viscusi, W. K., Magat, W. A., & Huber, J. (1987). An investigation of the rationality of consumer valuations of multiple health risks. The RAND Journal of Economics, 18(4), 465-479.