Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:15:36.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of the WTP–WTA Disparity for Benefit–Cost Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2015

James K. Hammitt
James K. Hammitt*
Affiliation:
Harvard University (Center for Risk Analysis), 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA, e-mail: jkh@harvard.edu Toulouse School of Economics (LERNA), 21 allée de Brienne, 31000 Toulouse, France, Phone: +1 617 432 4343, Fax: +1 617 432 0190
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Differences between estimated willingness to accept compensation (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) that are larger than can be explained by standard economic theory raise questions about which measures should be used for benefit–cost analysis (BCA). These differences do not create a new problem but accentuate an existing one: the fact that the Kaldor–Hicks compensation test is ambiguous when its two components conflict. This conflict is more likely when the difference between WTA and WTP measures of a change is large. In many cases, the same individuals receive benefits and incur costs from a policy change and their preferences for the policy cannot depend on whether they ask whether their WTP for the benefit exceeds the cost they will incur or their WTA to forgo the benefit exceeds the cost they will save. In cases where benefits and costs are incurred by different people, it seems more useful to evaluate the fundamental question – whether the benefits to some justify the harms to others – than to obscure this question through a technical debate about valuation measures.

Keywords

D61Q51stated preferencewillingness to acceptwillingness to pay
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 2015 , pp. 207 - 216
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

Adler, M. (2012). Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernheim, B. D. & Rangel, A. (2009). Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 51–104.Google Scholar
Flores, N. E. & Carson, R. T. (1997). The Relationship between the Income Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 287–295.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. M. III (1993). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Guzman, R. M. & Kolstad, C. D. (2007). Researching Preferences, Valuation and Hypothetical Bias. Environmental and Resource Economics, 37, 465–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammitt, J. K. (2013). Positive Versus Normative Justifications for Benefit-Cost Analysis: Implications for Interpretation and Policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, W. M. (1991). Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ? The American Economic Review, 81, 635–647.Google Scholar
Horowitz, J. K. & McConnell, K. E. (2002). A Review of WTP/WTA Studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 426–447.Google Scholar
Isoni, A., Loomes, G. & Sugden, R. (2011). The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the ‘Endowment Effect’, Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Comment. American Economic Review, 101, 991–1011.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L. & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, J. L. (2010). Values of Gains and Losses: Reference States and Choice of Measure. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, J. L., Riyanto, U. E. & Zong, J. (2012). Gain and Loss Domains and the Choice of Welfare Measure of Positive and Negative Changes. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 3(4), Article 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linneman, P. (1980). The Effects of Consumer Safety Standards: The 1973 Mattress Flammability Standard. Journal of Law and Economics, 23, 461–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. C. & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Plott, C. R. & Zeiler, K. (2005). The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the ‘Endowment Effect’, Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations. American Economic Review, 95, 530–545.Google Scholar
Plott, C. R. & Zeiler, K. (2007). Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory? American Economic Review, 97, 1449–1466.Google Scholar
Randall, A. & Stoll, J. R. (1980). Consumer’s Surplus in Commodity Space. American Economic Review, 70, 449–455.Google Scholar
Sayman, S. & Onculer, A. (2005). Effects of Study Design Characteristics on the WTP/WTA Disparity: A Meta Analytical Framework. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunçel, T. & Hammitt, J. K. (2014). A New Meta-Analysis on the WTP/WTA Disparity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (2003). Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC: OMB.Google Scholar
Zhao, J. & Kling, C. L. (2004). Willingness to Pay, Compensating Variation, and the Cost of Commitment. Economic Inquiry, 42, 503–517.Google Scholar