IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ucbecw/6103.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the creation and destruction of public goods : the matter of sequencing

Author

Listed:
  • Carson, Richard T.
  • Flores, Nicholas
  • Hanemann, W. Michael

Abstract

We consider sequences where a subset of public goods are systematically being created or destroyed. For the case of strict Hicksian substitutes between all pairs of this subset of public goods, we show that willingness to pay for an increase in a particular public good is strictly decreasing the farther out in a sequence it is valued. For the destruction of public goods the reverse is true for willingness to accept compensation. Thus, sequencing has opposite implications for the assessment of the benefits of providing public goods and for the assessment of the damages from destroying them.

Suggested Citation

  • Carson, Richard T. & Flores, Nicholas & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1993. "On the creation and destruction of public goods : the matter of sequencing," CUDARE Working Papers 6103, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ucbecw:6103
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.6103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/6103/files/wp930690.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.6103?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. Madden, Paul, 1991. "A Generalization of Hicksian q Substitutes and Complements with Application to Demand Rationing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(5), pages 1497-1508, September.
    2. Hoehn, John P & Randall, Alan, 1989. "Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 544-551, June.
    3. Hanemann, W Michael, 1991. "Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 635-647, June.
    4. John P. Hoehn, 1991. "Valuing the Multidimensional Impacts of Environmental Policy: Theory and Methods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(2), pages 289-299.
    5. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, 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. Alexandra K. Shannon & Faraz Usmani & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Marc Jeuland, 2019. "The Price of Purity: Willingness to Pay for Air and Water Purification Technologies in Rajasthan, India," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1073-1100, August.

    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. Sælensminde, Kjartan, 2003. "Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 59-72, January.
    2. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    4. Carson, Richard & Flores, Nicholas E. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1998. "Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 314-323, November.
    5. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    6. Randall, Alan & Hoehn, John P., 1993. "Embedding Effects in Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 201164, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    7. Carson, Richard T. & Flores, Nicholas E. & Hanemann, W. Michael, 1991. "On the Nature of Compensable Value in a Natural Resource Damage Assessment," 1991 Annual Meeting, August 4-7, Manhattan, Kansas 271170, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    9. Diane Dupont, 2003. "CVM Embedding Effects When There Are Active, Potentially Active and Passive Users of Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 319-341, July.
    10. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    11. Hoehn, John P. & Randall, Alan, 2002. "The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 13-31, February.
    12. W. George Hutchinson & Susan M. Chilton & John Davis, 1995. "Measuring Non‐Use Value Of Environmental Goods Using The Contingent Valuation Method: Problems Of Information And Cognition And The Application Of Cognitive Questionnaire Design Methods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 97-112, January.
    13. Hoehn, John P. & Loomis, John B., 1992. "Substitution Effects in the Contingent Valuation of Multiple Environmental Programs: A Maximum Likelihood Estimator and Empirical Tests," Staff Paper Series 201147, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    14. Hitzhusen, Frederick J. & Abdul-Mohsen, Ashraf & Kruse, Sarah, 2004. "Toward Improved Economic Analysis Using Contingent Valuation: Some Methodological Considerations Applied To River Toxics And Dam Removal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20326, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    16. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2000. "A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 343-349, August.
    17. Tonin, Stefania, 2018. "Citizens’ perspectives on marine protected areas as a governance strategy to effectively preserve marine ecosystem services and biodiversity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 189-200.
    18. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    19. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    20. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Mazur, Kasia, 2013. "Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: Comparing two choice modelling experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152176, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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:ucbecw:6103. 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/dabrkus.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.