A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity
A new meta-analysis on the WTP/WTA disparity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jeem.2014.06.001
复制
发表时间：
2014-07-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Hammitt, James K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tuncel, Tuba;Hammitt, James K.
这项研究报告了一项新的对论文的荟萃分析，这些论文引出了同一商品的支付意愿(WTP)和接受补偿意愿(WTA)的衡量标准。我们调查了好的类型和几个调查设计特征对WTP/WTA差异的影响，以平均WTA与平均WTP的比率的对数来衡量。证实了Horowitz和McConnell(2002)开创性的元分析，我们发现普通私人产品的差异比公共产品和非市场产品小，这不仅仅是使用假设交易或其他薄弱的实验或调查方法的人工制品，而且对于使用学生对象的研究来说，差异更小。此外，我们发现，当受试者有在真实市场上评估商品的经验或通过重复的实验试验时，差距会较小。与霍洛维茨和麦康奈尔相比，我们发现，在使用激励相容启发机制的研究中，差异要小得多。在最近的研究中，这种差异较小，这种影响只在一定程度上可归因于研究特征的变化。(C)2014 Elsevier Inc.保留所有权利。
This study reports a new meta-analysis of papers that elicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) and willingness-to-accept compensation (WTA) measures of value for the same good. We investigate the effects of type of good and several survey-design features on the WTP/WTA disparity, measured as the logarithm of the ratio of mean WTA to mean WTP. Confirming Horowitz and McConnell's (2002) pioneering meta-analysis, we find the disparity is smaller for ordinary private goods than for public and non-market goods, that it is not solely an artifact of using hypothetical transactions or other weak experimental or survey methods, and that it is smaller for studies using student subjects. In addition, we find that the disparity is smaller when subjects have experience valuing the good in real markets or through repeated experimental trials. In contrast to Horowitz and McConnell, we find the disparity is significantly smaller in studies using incentive-compatible elicitation mechanisms. The disparity is smaller in more recent studies, an effect that is attributable only in part to changes in study characteristics. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.