1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Resource Economics
  4. Volume 7, 2015
  5. Article

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volume 7, 2015

Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence Through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy

Abstract

The often observed empirical divergence between WTA and WTP measures of welfare change continues to be a topic of interest to both theoretical and applied economists. The divergence has particularly important implications for environmental policy. In this article, we review behavioral and other explanations of the disparity, with a focus on their connections to neoclassical welfare theory, and evaluate the empirical evidence of these explanations through the same lens. Some explanations of the disparity are consistent with neoclassical models, and some are not. Likewise, some imply that the divergences are attributed to underlying preferences (neoclassical or not), whereas others suggest that the divergences are due to elicitation methods, cognitive limitations, or other non-preference-related reasons. We argue that the source of the divergence can inform the choice of which measure, WTP or WTA, to use in a given empirical application.

Keyword(s): Hicksian welfare theory, nonmarket valuation, welfare economics, WTP-WTA disparity
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012501
2015-10-05
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/7/1/annurev-resource-100913-012501.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012501&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adamowicz WL, Bhardwaj V, Macnab B. 1993. Experiments on the difference between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Land Econ. 69:416–27 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson J, Vadnjal D, Uhlin H-E. 2000. Moral dimensions of the WTA–WTP disparity: an experimental examination. Ecol. Econ. 32:153–62 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arlen J, Spitzer M, Talley E. 2002. Endowment effects within corporate agency relationships. J. Legal Stud. 31:1–37 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58:4602–14 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barberis NC. 2013. Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: a review and assessment. J. Econ. Perspect. 27:173–95 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bateman I, Munro A, Rhodes B, Starmer C, Sugden R. 1997. A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 112:479–505 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bateman IJ, Day BH, Jones AP, Jude S. 2009. Reducing gain–loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 58:106–18 [Google Scholar]
  8. Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J. 1964. Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behav. Sci. 9:226–32 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biel A, Johansson-Stenman O, Nilsson A. 2011. The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap revisited: the role of emotions and moral satisfaction. J. Econ. Psychol. 32:908–17 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bishop RC. 1982. Option value: an exposition and extension. Land Econ. 58:1–15 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A. 2012. Salience in experimental tests of the endowment effect. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:47–52 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bowles S. 1998. Endogenous preferences: the cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. J. Econ. Lit. 36:75–111 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boyce RR, Brown TC, McClelland GH, Peterson GL, Schulze WD. 1992. An experimental examination of intrinsic values as a source of the WTA-WTP disparity. Am. Econ. Rev. 82:1366–73 [Google Scholar]
  14. Braga J, Starmer C. 2005. Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 32:55–89 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown TC. 2005. Loss aversion without the endowment effect, and other explanations for the WTA–WTP disparity. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 57:367–79 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown TC, Gregory R. 1999. Why the WTA–WTP disparity matters. Ecol. Econ. 28:323–35 [Google Scholar]
  17. Carmon Z, Ariely D. 2000. Focusing on the forgone: how value can appear so different to buyers and sellers. J. Consum. Res. 27:360–70 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carmon Z, Wertenbroch K, Zeelenberg M. 2003. Option attachment: when deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. J. Consum. Res. 30:15–29 [Google Scholar]
  19. Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF. 2001. Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ. Resour. Econ. 19:173–210 [Google Scholar]
  20. Carson RT, Groves T. 2007. Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 37:181–210 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cherry T, Frykblom P, Shogren J, List J, Sullivan M. 2004. Laboratory testbeds and non-market valuation: the case of bidding behavior in a second-price auction with an outside option. Environ. Resour. Econ. 29:285–94 [Google Scholar]
  22. Corrigan JR, Kling CL, Zhao J. 2008. Willingness to pay and the cost of commitment: an empirical specification and test. Environ. Resour. Econ. 40:285–98 [Google Scholar]
  23. Coursey DL, Hovis JL, Schulze WD. 1987. The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Q. J. Econ. 102:679–90 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dubourg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G. 1994. Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. J. Risk Uncertain. 9:115–33 [Google Scholar]
  25. Engelmann D, Hollard G. 2010. Reconsidering the effect of market experience on the “endowment effect.”. Econometrica 78:2005–19 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ericson KMM, Fuster A. 2014. The endowment effect. Annu. Rev. Econ. 6:555–79 [Google Scholar]
  27. Franciosi R, Kujal P, Michelitsch R, Smith V, Deng G. 1996. Experimental tests of the endowment effect. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 30:213–26 [Google Scholar]
  28. Freeman AM, Herriges JA, Kling CL. 2014. The Measurement of Environmental Resource Values: Theory and Methods Washington, DC: Resour. Future
  29. Gächter S, Johnson EJ, Herrmann A. 2010. Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. Work. Pap., Sch. Econ., Univ. Nottingham
  30. Georgantzis N, Navarro-Martínez D. 2010. Understanding the WTA–WTP gap: attitudes, feelings, uncertainty and personality. J. Econ. Psychol. 31:895–907 [Google Scholar]
  31. Graham DA. 1981. Cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty. Am. Econ. Rev. 71:715–25 [Google Scholar]
  32. Grutters JP, Kessels AG, Dirksen CD, Helvoort-Postulart V, Anteunis LJ, Joore MA. 2008. Willingness to accept versus willingness to pay in a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 11:1110–19 [Google Scholar]
  33. Guria J, Leung J, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G. 2005. The willingness to accept value of statistical life relative to the willingness to pay value: evidence and policy implications. Environ. Resour. Econ. 32:113–27 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hanemann WM. 1991. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: How much can they differ?. Am. Econ. Rev. 81:635–47 [Google Scholar]
  35. Harrison GW. 2007. Making choice studies incentive compatible. Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies Kanninen BJ. 67–110 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer [Google Scholar]
  36. Harstad RM, Selten R. 2013. Bounded-rationality models: tasks to become intellectually competitive. J. Econ. Lit. 51:496–511 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoehn JP, Randall A. 1987. A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 14:226–47 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hoffman E, Spitzer ML. 1993. Willingness to pay vs. willingness to accept: legal and economic implications. Wash. Univ. Law Q. 71:59–114 [Google Scholar]
  39. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE. 2002. A review of WTA/WTP studies. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44:426–47 [Google Scholar]
  40. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE. 2003. Willingness to accept, willingness to pay and the income effect. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 51:537–45 [Google Scholar]
  41. Horowitz JK, McConnell KE, Murphy JJ. 2013. Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation. See List & Price 2013, pp. 115–56
  42. Isoni A. 2011. The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?. Theory Decis. 71:409–30 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. 1990. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J. Polit. Econ. 98:1325–48 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–91 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kingsley DC, Brown TC. 2013. Value learning and the willingness to accept–willingness to pay disparity. Econ. Lett. 120:473–76 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kling CL, List JA, Zhao J. 2013. A dynamic explanation of the willingness to pay and willingness to accept disparity. Econ. Inq. 51:909–21 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kling CL, Phaneuf DJ, Zhao J. 2012. From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number?. J. Econ. Perspect. 26:3–26 [Google Scholar]
  48. Knetsch JL. 1989. The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. Am. Econ. Rev. 79:1277–84 [Google Scholar]
  49. Knetsch JL. 1990. Environmental policy implications of disparities between willingness to pay and compensation demanded measures of values. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 18:227–37 [Google Scholar]
  50. Knetsch JL. 2005. Gains, losses, and the US-EPA economic analyses guidelines: a hazardous product?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 32:91–112 [Google Scholar]
  51. Knetsch JL. 2010. Values of gains and losses: reference states and choice of measure. Environ. Resour. Econ. 46:179–88 [Google Scholar]
  52. Knetsch JL, Tang F-F, Thaler RH. 2001. The endowment effect and repeated market trials: Is the Vickrey auction demand revealing?. Exp. Econ. 4:257–69 [Google Scholar]
  53. Knetsch JL, Wong W-K. 2009. The endowment effect and the reference state: evidence and manipulations. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 71:407–13 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kolstad CD, Guzman RM. 1999. Information and the divergence between willingness to accept and willingness to pay. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 38:66–80 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kőszegi B, Rabin M. 2006. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 121:1133–65 [Google Scholar]
  56. Lerner JS, Small DA, Loewenstein G. 2004. Heart strings and purse strings carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychol. Sci. 15:337–41 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lin C-H, Chuang S-C, Kao DT, Kung C-Y. 2006. The role of emotions in the endowment effect. J. Econ. Psychol. 27:589–97 [Google Scholar]
  58. List JA. 2004. Substitutability, experience, and the value disparity: evidence from the marketplace. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 47:486–509 [Google Scholar]
  59. List JA. 2006. Using Hicksian surplus measures to examine consistency of individual preferences: evidence from a field experiment. Scand. J. Econ. 108:115–34 [Google Scholar]
  60. List JA, Price MK. 2013. Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  61. List JA, Shogren JF. 1999. Price information and bidding behavior in repeated second-price auctions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 81:942–49 [Google Scholar]
  62. Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T, Rabin M. 2003. Projection bias in predicting future utility. Q. J. Econ. 118:1209–48 [Google Scholar]
  63. Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R. 2003. Do anomalies disappear in repeated markets?. Econ. J. 113:C153–66 [Google Scholar]
  64. Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R. 2010. Preference reversals and disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to accept in repeated markets. J. Econ. Psychol. 31:374–87 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lusk JL. 2003. An experimental test of the commitment cost theory. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85:1316–22 [Google Scholar]
  66. Mishan EJ, Quah E. 2007. Cost Benefit Analysis New York: Routledge
  67. Morewedge CK, Shu LL, Gilbert DT, Wilson TD. 2009. Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:947–51 [Google Scholar]
  68. Neilson WS, McKee M, Berrens RP. 2013. Value and outcome uncertainty as explanations for the WTA vs WTP disparity. See List & Price 2013, pp. 171–89
  69. Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B. 2004. Revealing consumers’ willingness-to-pay: a comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. J. Econ. Psychol. 25:725–41 [Google Scholar]
  70. O’Brien BJ, Goeree R, Gafni A, Torrance GW, Pauly MV et al. 1998. Assessing the value of a new pharmaceutical: a feasibility study of contingent valuation in managed care. Med. Care 36:370–84 [Google Scholar]
  71. Okada EM. 2010. Uncertainty, risk aversion, and WTA vs. WTP. Mark. Sci. 29:75–84 [Google Scholar]
  72. OMB (US Off. Manag. Budg.). 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. Washington, DC: OMB
  73. Plott CR. 1996. Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis. Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior Arrow K, Colombatto E, Perleman M, Schmidt C. 225–50 London: Macmillan/St. Martin’s [Google Scholar]
  74. Plott CR, Zeiler K. 2005. The willingness to pay–willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect,” subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. Am. Econ. Rev. 95:530–45 [Google Scholar]
  75. Plott CR, Zeiler K. 2007. Exchange asymmetries incorrectly interpreted as evidence of endowment effect theory and prospect theory?. Am. Econ. Rev. 97:1449–66 [Google Scholar]
  76. Putler DS. 1992. Incorporating reference price effects into a theory of consumer choice. Mark. Sci. 11:287–309 [Google Scholar]
  77. Randall A, Stoll JR. 1980. Consumer’s surplus in commodity space. Am. Econ. Rev. 70:449–55 [Google Scholar]
  78. Ratan A. 2013. Anticipated regret or endowment effect? A reconsideration of exchange asymmetry in laboratory experiments. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 14:277–98 [Google Scholar]
  79. Reb J, Connolly T. 2007. Possession, feelings of ownership, and the endowment effect. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2:107–14 [Google Scholar]
  80. Sayman S, Öncüler A. 2005. Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA–WTP disparity: a meta analytical framework. J. Econ. Psychol. 26:289–312 [Google Scholar]
  81. Shogren JF, Cho S, Koo C, List J, Park C et al. 2001. Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Resour. Energy Econ. 23:97–109 [Google Scholar]
  82. Shogren JF, Shin SY, Hayes DJ, Kliebenstein JB. 1994. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Am. Econ. Rev. 84:255–70 [Google Scholar]
  83. Smith VK, Moore EM. 2010. Behavioral economics and benefit cost analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 46:217–34 [Google Scholar]
  84. Strahilevitz MA, Loewenstein G. 1998. The effect of ownership history on the valuation of objects. J. Consum. Res. 25:276–89 [Google Scholar]
  85. Svirsky D. 2014. Money is no object: testing the endowment effect in exchange goods. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 106:227–34 [Google Scholar]
  86. Tan J, Zhao J. 2015. Experiences and environmental preferences: the case of Beijing Olympics. Work. Pap., Dep. Econ., Mich. State Univ.
  87. Thaler R. 1985. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Mark. Sci. 4:199–214 [Google Scholar]
  88. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. 2003. Libertarian paternalism. Am. Econ. Rev. 93:175–79 [Google Scholar]
  89. Tunçel T, Hammitt JK. 2014. A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 68:175–87 [Google Scholar]
  90. Viscusi WK, Huber J. 2012. Reference-dependent valuations of risk: why willingness-to-accept exceeds willingness-to-pay. J. Risk Uncertain. 44:19–44 [Google Scholar]
  91. Weaver R, Frederick S. 2012. A reference price theory of the endowment effect. J. Mark. Res. 49:696–707 [Google Scholar]
  92. Weber TA. 2003. An exact relation between willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Econ. Lett. 80:311–15 [Google Scholar]
  93. Zhao J, Kling CL. 2001. A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity. Econ. Lett. 73:293–300 [Google Scholar]
  94. Zhao J, Kling CL. 2004. Willingness to pay, compensating variation, and the cost of commitment. Econ. Inq. 42:503–17 [Google Scholar]
  95. Zhao J, Kling CL. 2009. Welfare measures when agents can learn: a unifying theory. Econ. J. 119:1560–85 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012501
Loading
Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence Through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy
Annual Review of Resource Economics 7, 169 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012501
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012501
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012501
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error