Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T08:43:55.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of a Weaker Form of Complementarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Jon R. Neill
Jon R. Neill*
Affiliation:
Western Michigan University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

When a non-market good has existence value, the assumption of weak complementarity cannot be used to determine willingness to pay for that good. However, when this assumption is weakened, it is possible to place an upper bound on marginal willingness to pay even when the non-market good has existence value, and thereby, an upper bound on willingness to pay for changes in consumption of non-market goods can be established. Moreover, this upper bound may be relatively easy to compute.

Keywords

marginal willingness to payweak complementarity
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , 17 December 2012 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2012

References

Adamowicz, J. Louviere, and Williams, M.. “Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26 (1994): 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azevedo, J. Herriges, and Kling, C.. “Combining revealed and stated preferences: consistency tests and their interpretations,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85 (2003): 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookshire, David S., Thayer, Mark A., Schulze, William D., and d’Arge, Ralph C.. “Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches,” American Economic Review 72 (1982): 165–177.Google Scholar
Bullock, David S. and Minot, Nicholas. “On measuring the value of a nonmarket good using market data,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (2006): 961–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corduneanu, Constantin. Differential and Integral Equations. Chelsea Publishing Company, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
Diamond, Peter A. and Hausman, Jerry A.. “Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8 (1994): 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Udo. “Evaluation of nonmarket goods: recovering unconditional preferences,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (1998): 214–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. C., Haab, T. C., and Whitehead, J. C.. “Willingness to pay for quality improvement: should revealed and stated preference data be combined?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34 (1997): 240–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maler, K. “A method of estimating social benefits from pollution control,” Swedish Journal of Economics 75 (1971): 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neill, Jon R. “Another theorem on using market demands to determine willingness to pay for non-traded good,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15 (1988): 224–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neill, Jon R. “Rehabilitating weak complementarity,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 101 (1999): 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.Google Scholar
Vartia, Y. O. “Efficient methods of measuring welfare change and compensated income in terms of ordinary demand functions,” Econometrica 51 (1983): 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar