Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Process, Ideology, and Willingness to Pay for Reducing Childhood Poverty

  • Semra Ozdemir (a1), F. Reed Johnson (a2) and Dale Whittington (a3) (a4)

Abstract

We investigated the perceived value of government programs on early-childhood development as a means of reducing childhood poverty. We incorporated preferences for the process as well as the outcome by developing two stated-preference survey instruments. One survey directly elicited respondents’ willingness to pay specifically for high-quality, intensive, early-childhood development programs at federal and state levels. A second survey elicited respondents’ preferences for increasing or decreasing taxes and reallocating expenditures between other government programs and early-childhood programs. We found that respondents cared greatly about how childhood poverty was reduced, not just reducing poverty per se. The perceived effectiveness of a program and ideological perspective were found to be important determinants of preferences for a poverty-reduction program. Respondents across all groups, including conservatives and respondents who perceived the effectiveness of early-childhood programs to be low, were not in favor of reducing the early-childhood program.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Process, Ideology, and Willingness to Pay for Reducing Childhood Poverty
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Process, Ideology, and Willingness to Pay for Reducing Childhood Poverty
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Process, Ideology, and Willingness to Pay for Reducing Childhood Poverty
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
Alesina, Alberto & Angeletos, George-Marios (2005). Fairness and Redistribution: U.S. Versus Europe. American Economic Review, 95(4), 960980.
Alesina, Alberto & La Ferrara, Eliana (2005). Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 897931.
Barnett, W. Steven & Masse, Leonard N. (2007). Comparative Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Abecedarian Program and its Policy Implications. Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 113125.
Belfield, Clive, Brooks Bowden, A., Klapp, Alli, Levin, Henry, Shand, Robert & Zander, Sabine (2015). The Economic Value of Social and Emotional Learning. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(03), 508544.
Benabou, Roland & Ok, Efe A. (2001). Social Mobility and the Demand for Redistribution: The Poum Hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 447487.
Bergstrom, John C., Boyle, Kevin J. & Yabe, Mitsuyasu (2004). Trading Taxes Versus Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 28(4), 533549.
Bishop, Richard C. & Welsh, Michael P. (1992). Existence Values in Benefit-Cost Analysis and Damage Assessment. Land Economics, 405417.
Chang, Linchiat & Krosnick, Jon A. (2010). Comparing Oral Interviewing with Self-administered Computerized Questionnaires An Experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(1), 154167.
Diener, Alan, O’Brien, Bernie & Gafni, Amiram (1998). Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies: A Review and Classification of the Literature. Health Economics, 7(4), 313326.
Duncan, Greg J., Magnuson, Katherine, Kalil, Ariel & Ziol-Guest, Kathleen (2012). The Importance of Early Childhood Poverty. Social Indicators Research, 108(1), 8798.
Fong, Christina (2001). Social Preferences, Self-interest, and the Demand for Redistribution. Journal of Public economics, 82(2), 225246.
Greene, W. H.(2007). NLOGIT Version 4.0: Reference Guide. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software Inc.
Heberlein, Thomas A., Wilson, Matthew A., Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate (2005). Rethinking the Scope Test as a Criterion for Validity in Contingent Valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50(1), 122.
Heckman, James J. (2008). Schools, Skills, and Synapses. Economic Inquiry, 46(3), 289324.
Heckman, James J. & LaFontaine, Paul A. (2010). The American High School Graduation Rate: Trends and Levels. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 244262.
Heckman, James J., Moon, Seong Hyeok, Pinto, Rodrigo, Savelyev, Peter A. & Yavitz, Adam (2010). The Rate of Return to the High Scope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1), 114128.
Heerwegh, Dirk (2009). Mode Differences Between Face-to-Face and Web Surveys: An Experimental Investigation of Data Quality and Social Desirability Effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21(1), 111121.
Holbrook, Allyson L. & Krosnick, Jon A. (2010). Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports Tests Using the Item Count Technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1), 3767.
Holzer, Harry J., Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore, Duncan, Greg J. & Ludwig, Jens (2008). The Economic Costs of Childhood Poverty in the United States. Journal of Children and Poverty, 14(1), 4161.
Jacoby, William G. (1994). Public Attitudes Toward Government Spending. American Journal of Political Science, 336361.
Jacoby, William G. (2006). Value Choices and American Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 706723.
Johnson, F. Reed, Kanninen, Barbara, Bingham, Matthew & Özdemir, Semra (2007). Experimental Design for Stated-Choice Studies. In Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies (pp. 159202). The Netherlands: Springer.
Johnston, Robert J., Swallow, Stephen K. & Weaver, Thomas F. (1999). Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38(1), 97120.
Kahneman, Daniel & Sugden, Robert (2005). Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32(1), 161181.
Karoly, Lynn A. (2012). Toward Standardization of Benefit-Cost Analysis of Early Childhood Interventions. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3(1), 145.
Koford, Brandon C. (2010). Public Budget Choices and Private Willingness to Pay. Public Budgeting & Finance, 30(2), 4768.
Kreuter, Frauke, Presser, Stanley & Tourangeau, Roger (2008). Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys the Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 847865.
Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Stale (2011). Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5, 309351.
McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth (2000). Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(5), 447470.
Mitchell, Robert Cameron & Carson, Richard T. (2013). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Routledge.
Norton, Michael I. & Ariely, Dan (2011). Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 912.
Ozdemir, Semra, Johnson, F. Reed & Whittington, Dale (2016). Ideology, Public Goods and Welfare Valuation: An Experiment on Allocating Government Budgets. Journal of Choice Modelling, in press, corrected proof.
Rainer, Helmut & Siedler, Thomas (2008). Subjective Income and Employment Expectations and Preferences for Redistribution. Economics Letters, 99(3), 449453.
Revelt, David & Train, Kenneth(2000). Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households’ Choice of Electricity Supplier. Department of Economics, UCB.
Sas, Sas, and STAT User’s Guide. (1990). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC 355.
Stevens, Thomas H., DeCoteau, Nichole E. & Willis, Cleve E. (1997). Sensitivity of Contingent Valuation to Alternative Payment Schedules. Land Economics, 73(1), 140148.
Swallow, Stephen K. & McGonagle, Michael P. (2006). Public Funding of Environmental Amenities: Contingent Choices Using New Taxes or Existing Revenues for Coastal Land Conservation. Land Economics, 82(1), 5667.
Temple, Judy A. & Reynolds, Arthur J. (2015). Using Benefit-Cost Analysis to Scale Up Early Childhood Programs through Pay-for-Success Financing. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(03), 628653.
Whittington, Dale, Smith, V. Kerry, Okorafor, Apia, Okore, Augustine, Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander (1992). Giving Respondents Time to Think in Contingent Valuation Studies: A Developing Country Application. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(3), 205225.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Process, Ideology, and Willingness to Pay for Reducing Childhood Poverty

  • Semra Ozdemir (a1), F. Reed Johnson (a2) and Dale Whittington (a3) (a4)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.