IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae15/211349.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Elicitation Mechanisms to Estimate the Demand for Nutritious Maize: Evidence from Experiments in Rural Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Banerji, Abhijit
  • Chowdhury, Shyamal
  • Groote, Hugo
  • Meenakshi, J.V.
  • Haleegoah, Joyce
  • Ewool, Manfred

Abstract

We conduct a field experiment in Ghana to assess (a) consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a provitamin A maize variety, (b) the performance of three elicitation mechanisms (Becker-DeGroot-Marschak [BDM] mechanism, kth price auction, and choice experiment) in eliciting WTP, (c) the effect of participation fees on WTP and (d) the effect of nutrition information on WTP. WTP results are similar in magnitude across the three elicitation mechanisms. Variation in participation fee has no effect on estimated WTP in the two mechanisms that varied participation fee, suggesting that people did not have a higher propensity to spend out of windfall income. In the absence of information on the nutrient density of the provitamin A maize variety, consumers are willing to pay less for it than the existing varieties; however, nutrition information transforms this discount into a substantial premium.

Suggested Citation

  • Banerji, Abhijit & Chowdhury, Shyamal & Groote, Hugo & Meenakshi, J.V. & Haleegoah, Joyce & Ewool, Manfred, 2015. "Using Elicitation Mechanisms to Estimate the Demand for Nutritious Maize: Evidence from Experiments in Rural Ghana," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211349, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae15:211349
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.211349
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/211349/files/Banerji_etal_Various%20experiments_Ghana_maize_ICAE%202015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.211349?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rutstrom, E. Elisabet & Williams, Melonie B., 2000. "Entitlements and fairness:: an experimental study of distributive preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-89, September.
    2. Hugo De Groote & Simon Chege Kimenju & Ulrich B. Morawetz, 2011. "Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2004. "Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 725-741, December.
    4. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    5. Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Working Papers 2006.128, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Lawrence Rubey & Frank Lupi, 1997. "Predicting the Effects of Market Reform in Zimbabwe: A Stated Preference Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 89-99.
    7. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    8. Jayson L. Lusk & Matthew Rousu, 2006. "Market Price Endogeneity and Accuracy of Value Elicitation Mechanisms," Chapters, in: John A. List (ed.), Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    10. Lange, Andreas & Ratan, Anmol, 2010. "Multi-dimensional reference-dependent preferences in sealed-bid auctions - How (most) laboratory experiments differ from the field," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 634-645, March.
    11. Tschirley, David L. & Santos, Ana Paula, 1995. "Who Eats Yellow Maize? Preliminary Results of a Survey of Consumer Maize Preferences in Maputo, Mozambique," Food Security International Development Working Papers 54697, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    12. Lusk Jayson L & Schroeder Ted C., 2006. "Auction Bids and Shopping Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-39, August.
    13. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    14. Azucena Gracia & Maria L. Loureiro & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2011. "Are Valuations from Nonhypothetical Choice Experiments Different from Those of Experimental Auctions?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1358-1373.
    15. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2007. "Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1449-1466, September.
    16. Lusk,Jayson L. & Shogren,Jason F., 2007. "Experimental Auctions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671248, October.
    17. Cherry, Todd L. & Kroll, Stephan & Shogren, Jason F., 2005. "The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 357-365, July.
    18. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    19. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    20. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    21. Jeremy Clark, 2002. "House Money Effects in Public Good Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 223-231, December.
    22. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    23. Tschirley, David & Donovan, Cynthia & Weber, Michael T., 1996. "Food aid and food markets: lessons from Mozambique," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 189-209, May.
    24. Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Working Papers 2006.128, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    25. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    26. Kagel, John H & Harstad, Ronald M & Levin, Dan, 1987. "Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(6), pages 1275-1304, November.
    27. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    28. Chowdhury, Shyamal & Meenakshi, J. V. & Tomlins, Keith & Owori, Constance, 2009. "Are consumers willing to pay more for biofortified foods?: Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda," HarvestPlus working papers 3, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Murekezi, Abdoul & Oparinde, Adewale & Birol, Ekin, 2017. "Consumer market segments for biofortified iron beans in Rwanda: Evidence from a hedonic testing study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 35-49.
    2. Banerji, Abhijit & Birol, Ekin & Karandikar, Bhushana & Rampal, Jeevant, 2015. "Information, Branding, Certification, and Consumer Willingness to Pay for High-Iron Pearl Millet: Experimental Evidence from Maharashtra, India," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211346, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Shukla, Pallavi & Pullabhotla, Hemant K. & Baylis, Kathy, 2022. "Trouble with zero: The limits of subsidizing technology adoption," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. Hugo Groote & Clare Narrod & Simon C. Kimenju & Charles Bett & Rosemarie P. B. Scott & Marites M. Tiongco & Zachary M. Gitonga, 2016. "Measuring rural consumers’ willingness to pay for quality labels using experimental auctions: the case of aflatoxin-free maize in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 33-45, January.
    5. Salomón Pérez & Adewale Oparinde & Ekin Birol & Carolina Gonzalez & Manfred Zeller, 2018. "Consumer acceptance of an iron bean variety in Northwest Guatemala: the role of information and repeated messaging," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Herrington, Caitlin L. & Maredia, Mywish & Ortega, David L. & Taleon, Victor & Birol, Ekin & Sarkar, Abdur Rouf & Rahaman, Shajedur, 2021. "Rural Bangladeshi Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Nutrition via Zinc Biofortified Rice and Decreased Milling Practices," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315079, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Cole, Shawn & Fernando, A. Nilesh & Stein, Daniel & Tobacman, Jeremy, 2020. "Field comparisons of incentive-compatible preference elicitation techniques," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 33-56.
    8. Abedullah, A. & Kouser, S. & Ibrahim, M., 2018. "Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for Aflatoxin- Free Milk in Pakistan," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275957, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Su, Lianfan & Adam, Brian D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Arthur, Frank, 2017. "Anchoring, Information, and Fragility of Choice Experiments: An Application to Consumer Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Storage Management," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.
    10. Nazli, Hina & Birol, Ekin & Asare-Marfo, Dorene & Tariq, Asjad, 2015. "Wheat Farmers' Preferences for Wheat Traits in Punjab, Pakistan: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211352, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Shukla, Pallavi & Pullabhotla, Hemant K. & Baylis, Kathy, 2020. "Subsidizing Agricultural Technology Adoption: An Experimental and Behavioral Economics Approach," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304451, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Banerji, Abhijit & Birol, Ekin & Karandikar, Bhushana & Rampal, Jeevant, 2016. "Information, branding, certification, and consumer willingness to pay for high-iron pearl millet: Evidence from experimental auctions in Maharashtra, India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 133-141.

    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. A. Banerji & Shyamal Chowdhury & Hugo De Groote & J. V. Meenakshi & Joyce Haleegoah & Manfred Ewool, 2018. "Eliciting Willingness†to†Pay through Multiple Experimental Procedures: Evidence from Lab†in†the†Field in Rural Ghana," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(2), pages 231-254, June.
    2. Meenakshi, J. V. & Banerji, A. & Manyong, Victor & Tomlins, Keith & Hamukwala, Priscilla & Zulu, Rodah & Mungoma, Catherine, 2010. "Consumer acceptance of provitamin A orange maize in rural Zambia:," HarvestPlus working papers 4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Meenakshi, J.V. & Banerji, A. & Manyong, Victor & Tomlins, Keith & Mittal, Nitya & Hamukwala, Priscilla, 2012. "Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit the demand for a nutritious food: Willingness-to-pay for orange maize in rural Zambia," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 62-71.
    4. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta & Notaro, Sandra, 2010. "The Role Of Production Methods In Fruit Purchasing Behaviour: Hypothetical Vs Actual Consumers’ Preferences And Stated Minimum Requirements," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116426, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John N. Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2017. "Can insects increase food security in developing countries? An analysis of Kenyan consumer preferences and demand for cricket flour buns," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(3), pages 471-484, June.
    6. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Cerroni, S. & Watson, V. & Macdiarmid, J., 2018. "Preferences for healthy and environmentally sustainable food: Combining induced-value and home-grown experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277155, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. A. Banerji & Jeevant Rampal, 2020. "Reverse Endowment Effect for a New Product," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(3), pages 786-805, May.
    9. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    10. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Vranken, Liesbet, 2015. "Do labels capture consumers’ actual willingness to pay for Fair Trade characteristics?," Working Papers 206438, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    11. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Laura Taylor & Mark Morrison & Kevin Boyle, 2010. "Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 197-220, October.
    13. Grebitus, Carola & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 11-26.
    14. Banerji A & Jeevant Rampal, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Willingness to Pay for New Products," Working Papers id:7798, eSocialSciences.
    15. Colson, Gregory & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2011. "Improving the Nutrient Content of Food through Genetic Modification: Evidence from Experimental Auctions on Consumer Acceptance," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-22, August.
    16. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    17. Ariane Kehlbacher & Kelvin Balcombe & Richard Bennett, 2013. "Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Successive Choice Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 693-706, September.
    18. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    19. Stephan Kroll & Todd Cherry & Jason Shogren, 2007. "The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on contributions in best-shot public good games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(4), pages 411-428, December.
    20. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2009. "Earned wealth, engaged bidders? Evidence from a second-price auction," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 36-38, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:iaae15:211349. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.