IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v60y1989i2p123-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The stability of stated preferences for public goods: Evidence from recent budget games

Author

Listed:
  • Hans Groot
  • Evert Pommer

Abstract

We have investigated the stability of the individual response in recent budget games based on survey data, which is an important requirement for the reliability of this instrument. Budget games have gained popularity due to the problems encountered with alternative methods to determine preferences for public goods, such as the analysis of actual public expenditure date using median-voter theory or similar approaches. The short-term test-retest correlations (within an interval of one month) turn out to be rather low, typical around 0.3. No explanation of the test-retest differences could be found from the usual socio-economic and political characteristics of the respondents or from information characteristics of the survey design. Also, the pattern of budget-game outcomes for different countries and different periods is rather similar. The cumulative evidence suggests that the survey response to budget games is generated to a large extent by very general notions on the (un)desirability of public goods: ‘defence is bad, education and health care are good’. This implies that outcomes are often not related to the actual level and structure of public expenditure or revenues. As a result, the individual responses, even to the more sophisticated budget games, are subject to large uncertainty margins. Our results should warn researchers and, even more important, policy makers against giving too much weight to stated preferences for public expenditure or taxation levels obtained from budget games. Of course, further research is needed to obtain the precise limits of the instrument, including laboratory experimental economics. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Suggested Citation

  • Hans Groot & Evert Pommer, 1989. "The stability of stated preferences for public goods: Evidence from recent budget games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 123-132, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:60:y:1989:i:2:p:123-132
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00149240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00149240
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00149240?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. Maital, Shlomo, 1979. "Measurement of Net Benefits from Public Goods: A New Approach Using Survey Data," Public Finance = Finances publiques, , vol. 34(1), pages 85-99.
    2. Romer, Thomas & Rosenthal, Howard, 1979. "The elusive median voter," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 143-170, October.
    3. Brookshire, David S, et al, 1982. "Valuing Public Goods: A Comparison of Survey and Hedonic Approaches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 165-177, March.
    4. Hans Groot & Evert Pommer, 1987. "Budgetgames and the private and social demand for mixed public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 257-272, January.
    5. Robin Gregory & Lita Furby, 1987. "Auctions, experiments and contingent valuation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 273-289, October.
    6. D.A.L. Auld, 1980. "Preference Revelation for Public Goods: an Empirical Analysis," Public Finance Review, , vol. 8(3), pages 277-289, July.
    7. Don Coursey & William Schulze, 1986. "The application of laboratory experimental economics to the contingent valuation of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 47-68, January.
    8. Hockley, G. C. & Harbour, G., 1983. "Revealed preferences between public expenditures and taxation cuts: Public sector choice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 387-399, December.
    9. Throsby, C. D. & Withers, Glenn A., 1986. "Strategic bias and demand for public goods : Theory and an application to the arts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 307-327, December.
    10. James Ferris, 1983. "Demands for public spending: An attitudinal approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 135-154, January.
    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. Kemp, Simon & Willetts, Karyn, 1995. "Rating the value of government-funded services: Comparison of methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Kemp, Simon & Willetts, Karyn, 1995. "The value of services supplied by the New Zealand government," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 23-37, March.
    3. Mahoney, Michelle S. & Kemp, Simon & Webley, Paul, 2005. "Factors in lay preferences for government or private supply of services," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 73-87, February.
    4. Kemp, Simon, 1998. "Rating the values of government and market supplied goods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 447-461, August.
    5. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Cullen, Ross & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2005. "Stated Preference Evaluation of Government Budgets," 2005 Conference, August 26-27, 2005, Nelson, New Zealand 98520, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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. Nissim Ben‐David & Tchai Tavor, 2011. "Measurement of the social loss of wrong public budget allocation," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 38(3), pages 209-217, February.
    2. Hans Groot & Evert Pommer, 1987. "Budgetgames and the private and social demand for mixed public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 257-272, January.
    3. Don Coursey, 1987. "Markets and the measurement of value," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 291-297, October.
    4. Kemp, Simon & Willetts, Karyn, 1995. "Rating the value of government-funded services: Comparison of methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Yamamura, Eiji, 2014. "Time preference and perceptions about government spending and tax: Smokers’ dependence on government support," MPRA Paper 55659, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. François Facchini, 1993. "Paysage et économie : la mise en évidence d'une solution de marché," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 218(1), pages 12-18.
    7. Robin Gregory & Lita Furby, 1987. "Auctions, experiments and contingent valuation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 273-289, October.
    8. Arthur Schram & Frans Winden, 1989. "Revealed preferences for public goods: Applying a model of voter behavior," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 259-282, March.
    9. Fisher, Ann & Wheeler, William J. & Zwick, Rami, 1993. "Experimental Methods In Agricultural And Resource Economics: How Useful Are They?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-14, October.
    10. Kemp, Simon & Willetts, Karyn, 1995. "The value of services supplied by the New Zealand government," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 23-37, March.
    11. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    12. G. Tridimas*, 1985. "Budget Deficits and the Growth of Public Expenditure in South Africa," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 53(4), pages 251-257, December.
    13. Judy A. Temple & Susan Porter‐Hudak, 1995. "Preferences For State Tax And Spending Policies: Evidence From Survey Data On The Role Of Income," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(1), pages 43-58, March.
    14. Kristien Werck & Bruno Heyndels & Benny Geys, 2008. "The impact of ‘central places’ on spatial spending patterns: evidence from Flemish local government cultural expenditures," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 32(1), pages 35-58, March.
    15. Bernd Hayo & Florian Neumeier, 2017. "Public Attitudes toward Fiscal Consolidation: Evidence from a Representative German Population Survey," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 42-69, February.
    16. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    17. White, Karen, 2010. "Measuring Livability in Transportation Infrastructure Investments," 51st Annual Transportation Research Forum, Arlington, Virginia, March 11-13, 2010 207267, Transportation Research Forum.
    18. Tim Higgins & Glenn Withers, 2009. "Community Attitudes to Income Contingent Loans," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 12(2), pages 217-236.
    19. Brennan, Timothy & Boyd, James, 1996. "Pluralism and Regulatory Failure: When Should Takings Trigger Compensation?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-96-09, Resources for the Future.
    20. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:60:y:1989:i:2:p:123-132. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.