IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v26y2004i3p359-369.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers' willingness to pay for power in India: conceptual issues, survey results and implications for pricing

Author

Listed:
  • Dossani, Rafiq
  • Ranganathan, V.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Dossani, Rafiq & Ranganathan, V., 2004. "Farmers' willingness to pay for power in India: conceptual issues, survey results and implications for pricing," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 359-369, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:26:y:2004:i:3:p:359-369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140-9883(04)00014-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Dossani, Rafiq, 2004. "Reorganization of the power distribution sector in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(11), pages 1277-1289, July.
    2. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    3. Tsu‐Tan Fu & Jin‐Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt, 1999. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Low‐Pesticide Fresh Produce in Taiwan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 220-233, May.
    4. Gertler, P. & Van Der Gaag, J., 1988. "Measuring The Willingness To Pay For Social Services In Developing Countries," Papers 45, World Bank - Living Standards Measurement.
    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. World Bank, 2010. "Deep Wells and Prudence : Towards Pragmatic Action for Addressing Groundwater Overexploitation in India," World Bank Publications - Reports 2835, The World Bank Group.
    2. Kimmich, Christian & Sagebiel, Julian, 2016. "Empowering irrigation: A game-theoretic approach to electricity utilization in Indian agriculture," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(PB), pages 174-185.
    3. Rains, Emily & Abraham, Ronald J., 2018. "Rethinking barriers to electrification: Does government collection failure stunt public service provision?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 288-300.
    4. Krishnan C, Muralee & Gupta, Santanu, 2018. "Political pricing of electricity – Can it go with universal service provision?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 373-381.
    5. Srinivasan, Sunderasan, 2014. "Economic populism, partial deregulation of transport fuels and electoral outcomes in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 465-475.
    6. Christian Kimmich & Sergio Villamayor Tomas, 2019. "Assessing Action Situation Networks: A Configurational Perspective on Water and Energy Governance in Irrigation Systems," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(01), pages 1-29, 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. Travisi, Chiara M. & Nijkamp, Peter, 2004. "Are Italians Willing to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety? A Stated Choice Approach," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24988, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Anna Alberini & Stefania Tonin & Margherita Turvani, 2009. "The Value of Reducing Cancer Risks at Contaminated Sites: Are More Heavily Exposed People Willing to Pay More?," Working Papers 2009.60, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety: Evidence from a Survey of Milan, Italy, Residents," Working Papers 2004.100, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2004. "Willingness to pay for Agricultural Environmental Safety," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-070/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Stefania Tonin & Anna Alberini & Margherita Turvani, 2012. "The Value of Reducing Cancer Risks at Contaminated Sites: Are More Knowledgeable People Willing to Pay More?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(7), pages 1157-1182, July.
    6. Vredin Johansson, Maria & Heldt, Tobias & Johansson, Per, 2006. "The effects of attitudes and personality traits on mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 507-525, July.
    7. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    8. Luttmer, Erzo F. P. & Zeckhauser, Richard & Kousky, Carolyn, 2006. "Permits to Elicit Information," Working Paper Series rwp06-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann, & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert C. Mitchell & Stanley Presser & Paul A. Rudd & V. Kerry Smith & Michael Conaway & Kerry Martin, 1997. "Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 151-163.
    10. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    11. Dow, W.H., 1995. "Welfare Impacts of Health Case User Fees : A Health- Valuation Approach to Analysis with Imperfect Markets," Papers 95-21, RAND - Labor and Population Program.
    12. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    13. Daniel W. Sacks & Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2010. "Subjective well-being, income, economic development and growth," Working Paper Series 2010-28, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    14. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139785, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    17. Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine & Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2016. "The value of mortality risk reductions. Pure altruism - a confounder?," DaCHE discussion papers 2016:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    18. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    19. Kevin Boyle & Sapna Kaul & Ali Hashemi & Xiaoshu Li, 2015. "Applicability of benefit transfers for evaluation of homeland security counterterrorism measures," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 10, pages 225-253, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Seck, Abdoulaye & Thiam, Djiby Racine, 2022. "Understanding consumer attitudes to and valuation of organic food in Sub-Saharan Africa: A double-bound contingent method applied in Dakar, Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(1), March.

    More about this item

    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:eneeco:v:26:y:2004:i:3:p:359-369. 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/eneco .

    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.