Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey

The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey This paper examines the criticism of contingent valuation put forth by Blamey, Common and Quiggin (Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 1995, vol. 39, pp. 264–288). They argue that households have consistent preferences over private goods but not jointly consistent preferences over public and private goods and, hence, contingent valuation cannot uncover meaningful responses for the valuation of public goods. In this paper we argue that the motives that are manifested in choices for public goods can be explained in two ways. One is the model of the citizen, proposed by Blamey et al. (1995). The second is a model of neoclassical preferences with altruism. Given these alternative and competing explanations of choices for public goods, what matters is whether they imply differences in willingness to pay for public goods. We provide statistical evidence from a contingent valuation study of the control of deer in the USA that there is no difference in willingness to pay between those who profess ‘citizen’ or altruistic preferences and the rest of the presumably purely private respondents. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Australian Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics Wiley

The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey

Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/the-citizen-versus-consumer-hypothesis-evidence-from-a-contingent-UigMmWRIBQ

References (15)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
1364-985X
eISSN
1467-8489
DOI
10.1111/1467-8489.00167
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper examines the criticism of contingent valuation put forth by Blamey, Common and Quiggin (Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 1995, vol. 39, pp. 264–288). They argue that households have consistent preferences over private goods but not jointly consistent preferences over public and private goods and, hence, contingent valuation cannot uncover meaningful responses for the valuation of public goods. In this paper we argue that the motives that are manifested in choices for public goods can be explained in two ways. One is the model of the citizen, proposed by Blamey et al. (1995). The second is a model of neoclassical preferences with altruism. Given these alternative and competing explanations of choices for public goods, what matters is whether they imply differences in willingness to pay for public goods. We provide statistical evidence from a contingent valuation study of the control of deer in the USA that there is no difference in willingness to pay between those who profess ‘citizen’ or altruistic preferences and the rest of the presumably purely private respondents.

Journal

The Australian Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics – Wiley

Published: Mar 1, 2002

There are no references for this article.