Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-4thr5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:18:45.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Curiously Continuing Saga of Choosing the Measure of Welfare Changes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2015

Jack L. Knetsch
Jack L. Knetsch*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, Canada, e-mail: knetsch@sfu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The results of the vast array of willingness to accept compensation/ willingness to pay (WTA/WTP) disparity studies provide strong evidence that people value many losses and reductions of losses, more, and often much more, than otherwise commensurate gains or foregoing of gains. These findings also make it clear that people commonly value many changes not as final states as standard theory assumes, but as positive or negative changes relative to a neutral reference state. Consequently, not only are losses to be most accurately assessed with the WTA measure, but most positive changes that reduce losses are as well. Current practice, which rarely takes such reference dependence into account, is therefore likely to substantially understate the value and importance of projects, policies, and programs that reduce losses. Failing to take the possibilities of valuation disparities into account also appears to undermine other kinds of analyses as well, including, for example, the estimation of elasticities and setting effective levels of Pigouvian taxes.

Keywords

D03D61H43I31Q51reference statewilling-to-paywilling-to-accept: valuation disparity
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 2015 , pp. 217 - 225
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fryer, Roland G., Levitt, Steva D., List, John & Sadoff, Sally (2012). Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: a Field Experiment. Working Paper 18237. Cambridge, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillingham, Kenneth & Palmer, Karen (2014). Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Policy Insights from Economic Theory and Empirical Evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(1), 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, Uri & Rustichini, Aldo (2000). Pay Enough, or Don’t Pay at All. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 791–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammack, J. & Brown, Gardner (1974). Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bio-economic Analysis. Baltimore, USA: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Horowitz, John & McConnell, Kenneth. (2002). A Review of WTA/WTP Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 426–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A. M. (1941). Consumer’s Surplus and the Compensation Variation. Review of Economic Studies, 8, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, Jack L., Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Zong, Jichuan (2012). Gain and Loss Domains and the Choice of Welfare Measure of Positive and Negative Changes. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3(4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, Jack L. & Wong, Wei-Kang (2009). The Endowment Effect and the Reference State: Evidence and Manipulations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 71, 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koszegi, Botond & Rabin, Matthew (2006). A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 1133–1165.Google Scholar
Pope, Devin G. & Schweitzer, Maurice E. (2011). Is Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes. The American Economic Review, 97, 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putler, Daniel S. (1992). Incorporating Reference Price Effects into a Theory of Consumer Choice. Marketing Science, 11, 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. Kerry & Moore, Eric M. (2010). Behavioral Economics and Benefit Cost Analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somervuori, Outi & Ravaja, Niklas (2013). Purchase Behavior and Psychophysiological Responses to Different Price Levels. Psychology and Marketing, 30(6), 479–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112, S164–S182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuncel, T. & Hammitt, James K. (2014). A New Meta-Analysis on the WTP/WTA Disparity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, Ray & Frederick, Shane (2012). A Reference Price Theory of the Endowment Effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 696–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbe, Richard O. (2001). Economic Efficiency in Law and Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar