IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v189y2020ics0165176520300434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market-based policies, public opinion, and information

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobsen, Grant D.

Abstract

This paper experimentally examines the extent to which individuals support a market-based approach to public policy and how support levels respond to being presented with policy analysis indicating market-based policies are more cost-effective. The findings are as follows. First, absent being presented with any policy analysis, individuals tend to oppose a market-based approach to policy. Second, providing individuals with policy analysis, in which specific types of market-based policies are described as more cost-effective than non-market-based alternatives, increases general support for a market-based approach to policy. Third, the increase in support for a market-based approach to policy is larger when a nonpartisan research organization produces the analysis than a partisan organization.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobsen, Grant D., 2020. "Market-based policies, public opinion, and information," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:189:y:2020:i:c:s0165176520300434
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176520300434
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna & Matthew Gentzkow, 2010. "Persuasion: Empirical Evidence," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 643-669, September.
    3. Ofra Amir & David G Rand & Ya'akov Kobi Gal, 2012. "Economic Games on the Internet: The Effect of $1 Stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-4, February.
    4. Grant D. Jacobsen, 2019. "How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 315-342, September.
    5. Matthew E. Kahn, 2002. "Demographic change and the demand for environmental regulation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 45-62.
    6. Bryan Caplan, 2007. "Introduction to The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies," Introductory Chapters, in: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, Princeton University Press.
    7. Whaples Robert, 2006. "Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 3(9), pages 1-6, November.
    8. Robert Whaples, 2009. "The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members: The Results of a New Survey," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 6(3), pages 337-348, September.
    9. Costa, Dora L. & Kahn, Matthew E., 2013. "Do liberal home owners consume less electricity? A test of the voluntary restraint hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 210-212.
    10. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Leiserowitz, Anthony A., 2013. "Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 617-625.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thiago Morello, 2023. "An Agri-environmental Scheme for Reducing Inputs Subjected to Accidental Spillage: An Application to Agricultural Burnings by Smallholders," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(2), pages 383-408, February.
    2. Thiago Fonseca Morello & Luís Fernando Silva e Silva, 2023. "Garnering support for Pigouvian taxation with tax return: a lab experiment," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 25(2), pages 115-142, April.
    3. Ximing Zhang & Xiao Li & Hui Wang, 2023. "Why Do Farmers Support Stable Land Ownership? Marketization with Chinese Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grant D. Jacobsen, 2019. "How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 315-342, September.
    2. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    3. Matthew J. Holian & Matthew E. Kahn, 2014. "Household Demand for Low Carbon Public Policies: Evidence from California," NBER Working Papers 19965, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    5. Natalia Mishagina & Claude Montmarquette, 2018. "The Demand for Economic Policies, Beliefs, and Willingness-to-Pay: The Case of the Minimum Wage Policy in Quebec," CIRANO Project Reports 2018rp-14, CIRANO.
    6. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    7. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    8. Stephen C. Miller, 2009. "Economic Bias and Ideology: Evidence from the General Social Survey," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 25(Fall 2009), pages 31-49.
    9. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.
    10. Alexsandros Cavgias & Raphael Corbi, Luis Meloni, Lucas M. Novaes, 2019. "EDITED DEMOCRACY: Media Manipulation and the News Coverage of Presidential Debates," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2019_17, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    11. Valerio Capraro & David G. Rand, 2018. "Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 99-111, January.
    12. Ola Andersson & Jim Ingebretsen Carlson & Erik Wengström, 2021. "Differences Attract: An Experimental Study of Focusing in Economic Choice," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(639), pages 2671-2692.
    13. Conte, Marc N. & Jacobsen, Grant D., 2016. "Explaining Demand for Green Electricity Using Data from All U.S. Utilities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 122-130.
    14. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G James & Stéphane Luchini & James J Murphy & Jason F Shogren, 2021. "Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    15. Timothy C. Haab & John C. Whitehead, 2017. "What do Environmental and Resource Economists Think? Results from a Survey of AERE Members," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 43-58.
    16. Jonathan de Quidt, 2018. "Your Loss Is My Gain: A Recruitment Experiment with Framed Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 522-559.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:99-111 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Simon, Lisa & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "Can Online Surveys Represent the Entire Population?," IZA Discussion Papers 11799, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Aurelie Ouss & Alexander Peysakhovich, 2015. "When Punishment Doesn't Pay: "Cold Glow" and Decisions to Punish," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(3).
    20. Thomas Buser & Anna Dreber, 2016. "The Flipside of Comparative Payment Schemes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(9), pages 2626-2638, September.
    21. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Market-based policies; Public opinion; Policy analysis; Information;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:189:y:2020:i:c:s0165176520300434. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.