Consequentiality and contingent values: an emerging paradigm

Poe, Gregory L. and Vossler, Christian A. (2009): Consequentiality and contingent values: an emerging paradigm.

Abstract

In this paper we summarize the theoretical arguments of Carson and Groves, et al., and assemble early empirical evidence that comports with this theoretical framework. In doing so, we argue that redefining criterion validity in terms of consequentiality offers the potential for a fundamental paradigm shift in the Kuhnian sense. That this shift has yet to be fully incorporated into the contingent valuation literature reflects the nascent state of this paradigmatic challenge as well as the continued inertia of the dominant hypothetical bias paradigm. Further, empirical support for Carson and Groves, et al.’s consequentiality arguments have emerged in a somewhat piecemeal manner, spread across a diverse set of journal articles and unpublished manuscripts

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: contingent valuation; consequentiality; mechanism design
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925 > B21 - Microeconomics; H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H41 - Public Goods; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q51 - Valuation of Environmental Effects

References

Aadland, D., B. Anatchkova, B. Grandjean, J.F. Shogren, B. Simon and P.A. Taylor (2007), “Valuing Access to Our Public Lands: A Unique Public Good Pricing Experiment”, Selected Paper Presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association meetings, Portland OR, July.

Bohm, P. (1972), “Estimating Demands for Public Goods: An Experiment”, European Economic Review, 3: 111-130.

Burton, A.C., K.S. Carson, S.M. Chilton and W.G. Hutchinson (2007), “Resolving Questions about Bias in Real and Hypothetical Referenda”, Environmental and Resource Economics 38(4): 513-525.

Cameron, T.A., G.L. Poe, R.G. Ethier and W.D. Schulze (2002), “Alternative Non-Market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44: 391-425.

Carson, R.T. (1997), “Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope”, In R.J. Kopp, W. Pommerhene and N. Schwartz, eds., Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 127–163.

Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin and J.L. Wright (1996), “Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods”, Land Economics 72(1): 80–99.

Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores and N.F. Meade (2001), "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence", Environmental and Resource Economics 19(2): 173-210.

Carson R.T., T. Groves and M.J. Machina (1997), “Stated preference questions: context and optimal response.” Paper presented at the National science foundation preference elicitation symposium, University of California, Berkeley.

Carson R.T., T. Groves and M.J. Machina (1999), “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preferences Questions”, Plenary Address, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Oslo, Norway.

Carson, R.T and T. Groves (2007), “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions”, Environmental and Resource Economics 37(1): 181-210.

Carson, R., T. Groves, J. List and M. Machina (2004), “Probabilistic Influence and Supplemental Benefits: A Field Test of Two Key Assumptions Underlying Stated Preferences”, Unpublished Draft Manuscript.

Champ, P.A., RC. Bishop, T.C. Brown and D.W. McCollum (1997), “Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Non-Use Benefits form Public Goods”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 33(2): 151-163.

Collins, J.P. and C.A. Vossler (2009), “Incentive Compatibility Tests of Choice Experiment Value Elicitation Questions”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58(2): 226-235.

Cummings, R.G., G.W. Harrison and E.E. Ruström (1995), “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive Compatible?”, American Economic Review 85(1): 260-266.

DuBourg, W.R., M.W. Jones-Lee and G. Loomes (1994), “Imprecise Preferences and the WTP-WTA Disparity”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9: 115-133.

Gibbard, A. (1973), “Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result”, Econometrica 41(3): 587-602.

Haab, T.C. and K.E. McConell (1997), “Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32(2): 251-270.

Harrison, G.W. and J.A. List (2004), “Field Experiments”, Journal of Economic Literature XLII: 1009-1055.

Harrison, G.W. and E. Ruström (2008), “Chapter 81: Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods”, Handbook of Experimental Economics 1: 752-767.

Herriges, J., C. Kling, C-C Liu, and J. Tobias (forth.), “What are the Consequences of Consequentiality?”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.

Johnston, R.J. (2006), “Is Hypothetical Bias Universal? Validating Contingent Valuation Responses Using a Binding Public Referendum”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 52(1):469-481.

Kahneman, D., P. Slovic and A. Tversky (1982), Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kriström, B. (1990), “A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies”, Land Economics 66(2): 135-139.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd Ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Landry, C.E. and J.A. List (2007), “Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(2): 420-429.

List, J.A. and C.A. Gallet (2001), “What Experiential Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Evidence from a Meta Analysis”, Environmental and Resource Economics 20(3): 251-254.

Little, J. and R. Berrens (2004), “Explaining Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigations Using Meta Analysis”, Economics Bulletin 3(6): 1-13.

Murphy, J.J., P.G. Allen, T.H. Stevens, and D. Weatherhead (2005), “A Meta-Analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation”, Environmental and Resource Economics 30(3): 313-325.

Murphy, J.J. and T.H. Stevens (2004), “Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics”, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 33(2): 182-192.

Opaluch, J.J. and K. Segerson (1989), “Rational Roots of ‘Irrational’ Behavior: New Theories of Economic Decision-Making”, Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 18(2): 81-95.

Poe, G.L. J.E. Clark, D. Rondeau and W.D. Schulze (2002), “Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation”, Environmental and Resource Economics 23(1): 105-131.

Ready, R.C., J.C. Whitehead and G.C. Blomquist (1995), “Contingent Valuation When Respondents are Ambivalent”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29(2): 181-186.

Satterthwaite, M. (1975), “Strategy-Proofness and Arrow Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Welfare Functions”, Journal of Economic Theory 10(2): 187-217.

Smith, V.L. (1976), “Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory”, American Economic Review, 66(2): 274-279.

Taylor, L.O., M. McKee, S.K. Laury and R.G. Cummings (2001), “Induced-Value Tests of the Referendum Voting Mechanism”, Economics Letters 71: 61-65.

Vaughan, W.J. and D.J. Rodriguez (2001), “Obtaining Welfare Bounds in Discrete-Response Valuation Studies: Comment”, Land Economics 77(3): 457-465.

Vossler, C.A. and M. McKee (2006), “Induced Value Tests of Contingent Valuation Elicitation Mechanisms”, Environmental and Resource Economics 35: 137-168.

Vossler, C.A. and M.F. Evans (forth.), “Bridging the Gap Between the Field and the Lab: Environmental Goods, Policy Maker Input, and Consequentiality”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.