IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v91y2006i3p837-853.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Open-Ended Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions: An Application to Golden Rice

Author

Listed:
  • Jay R. Corrigan
  • Dinah Pura T. Depositario
  • Rodolfo M. Nayga
  • Ximing Wu
  • Tiffany P. Laude

Abstract

We use two experimental valuation methods to estimate consumer demand for genetically modified golden rice. The first is an open-ended choice experiment (OECE) where participants name the quantities of golden rice and conventional rice demanded at each of several price combinations, one of which will be randomly chosen as binding. This allows us to estimate market demand by aggregating demand across participants. This estimate of market demand also allows us to estimate own-price elasticity and consumer surplus for golden rice. Comparing willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates from the OECE with those from a uniform-price auction, we find that OECE WTP estimates exhibit less affiliation across rounds, and the effects of positive and negative information under the OECE are more consistent with prior expectations and existing studies. We also find that, while auction WTP estimates more than double across five rounds, OECE WTP estimates are stable across rounds and are always roughly equal to those from the final auction round. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jay R. Corrigan & Dinah Pura T. Depositario & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Ximing Wu & Tiffany P. Laude, 2006. "Comparing Open-Ended Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions: An Application to Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 837-853.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:91:y:2006:i:3:p:837-853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01267.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:ajagec:v:91:y:2006:i:3:p:837-853. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.