IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hdl/wpaper/2409.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preference elicitation methods and equivalent income: an overview

Author

Listed:
  • Shaun Da Costa;
  • Koen Decancq;
  • Marc Fleurbaey;
  • Erik Schokkaert;

Abstract

The equivalent income is a preference-based, interpersonally comparable measure of well-being. Although its theoretical foundations are well-established, empirical applications remain limited, primarily due to the detailed data requirements on individuals’ preferences across various well-being dimensions. This paper reviews the literature on preference elicitation methods with a focus on estimating equivalent income. We examine several survey-based methods, including contingent valuation, multi-attribute choice or rating experiments, and life satisfaction regressions. The review highlights the advantages and limitations of each method, emphasizing the considerable scope for methodological improvements and innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaun Da Costa; & Koen Decancq; & Marc Fleurbaey; & Erik Schokkaert;, 2024. "Preference elicitation methods and equivalent income: an overview," Working Papers 2409, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    • Handle: RePEc:hdl:wpaper:2409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docstore/d:irua:27066
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715348, January.
    2. Danilo Cavapozzi & Wei Han & Raffaele Miniaci, 2015. "Alternative weighting structures for multidimensional poverty assessment," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 13(3), pages 425-447, September.
    3. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier Bargain & H. Xavier Jara, 2020. "‘Fair’ welfare comparisons with heterogeneous tastes: subjective versus revealed preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 51-84, June.
    4. Gary S. Becker & Tomas J. Philipson & Rodrigo R. Soares, 2005. "The Quantity and Quality of Life and the Evolution of World Inequality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 277-291, March.
    5. Mark McGillivray & Simon Feeny & Paul Hansen & Stephen Knowles & Franz Ombler, 2023. "What are Valid Weights for the Human Development Index? A Discrete Choice Experiment for the United Kingdom," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 165(2), pages 679-694, January.
    6. Romina Boarini & Marc Fleurbaey & Fabrice Murtin & Paul Schreyer, 2022. "Well‐being during the Great Recession: new evidence from a measure of multi‐dimensional living standards with heterogeneous preferences," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 104-138, January.
    7. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    8. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    9. Magat, Wesley A. & Kip Viscusi, W. & Huber, Joel, 1988. "Paired comparison and contingent valuation approaches to morbidity risk valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 395-411, December.
    10. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    11. Yu, Jie & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2011. "Individually adapted sequential Bayesian conjoint-choice designs in the presence of consumer heterogeneity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 378-388.
    12. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    13. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    14. Fleurbaey, Marc & Blanchet, Didier, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing Sustainability," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199767199.
    15. Adler, Matthew D. & Fleurbaey, Marc (ed.), 2016. "The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199325818.
    16. Andriy Danyliv & Milena Pavlova & Irena Gryga & Wim Groot, 2012. "Willingness to pay for physician services: Comparing estimates from a discrete choice experiment and contingent valuation," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 34(2), pages 339-357, June.
    17. Elisha A. Pazner & David Schmeidler, 1978. "Egalitarian Equivalent Allocations: A New Concept of Economic Equity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 92(4), pages 671-687.
    18. Angus Deaton, 1979. "The Distance Function in Consumer Behaviour with Applications to Index Numbers and Optimal Taxation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 46(3), pages 391-405.
    19. Martin Ravallion & Kristen Himelein & Kathleen Beegle, 2016. "Can Subjective Questions on Economic Welfare Be Trusted?," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(4), pages 697-726.
    20. Verity Watson & Chris Dibben & Matt Cox & Iain Atherton & Matt Sutton & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "Testing the Expert Based Weights Used in the UK’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) Against Three Preference-Based Methods," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(3), pages 1055-1074, August.
    21. Bernheim, B. Douglas, 2016. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Unified Approach to Behavioral Welfare Economics1," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 12-68, April.
    22. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    23. Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2008. "Putting a price tag on friends, relatives, and neighbours: Using surveys of life satisfaction to value social relationships," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1459-1480, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2019. "Multidimensional poverty measurement with individual preferences," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 17(1), pages 29-49, March.
    3. Yang, Lin, 2018. "Measuring well-being: a multidimensional index integrating subjective well-being and preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87789, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Romina Boarini & Marc Fleurbaey & Fabrice Murtin & Paul Schreyer, 2022. "Well‐being during the Great Recession: new evidence from a measure of multi‐dimensional living standards with heterogeneous preferences," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 104-138, January.
    5. Ida Petrillo, 2018. "Computation of Equivalent Incomes and Social Welfare for EU and Non-EU Countries," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 64(3), pages 396-425.
    6. Yang, Lin, 2017. "Measuring individual well-being: A multidimensional index integrating subjective well-being and preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103495, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2019. "Well-being measurement with non-classical goods," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(3), pages 765-786, October.
    8. DECANCQ Koen & OLIVERA Javier & SCHOKKAERT Erik, 2018. "Program evaluation and ethnic differences: the Pension 65 program in Peru," LISER Working Paper Series 2018-21, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    9. Matthew D. Adler & Koen Decancq, 2021. "Well-Being Measurement," Working Papers 2105, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    10. Lin Yang, 2017. "Measuring individual well-being: A multidimensional index integrating subjective well-being and preferences," CASE Papers /202, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    11. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    12. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Schüle, Christopher & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2023. "The motivational drivers behind consumer preferences for regional electricity – Results of a choice experiment in Southern Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Decancq, Koen & Olivera, Javier & Schokkaert, Erik, 2025. "Ethnic differences and preference heterogeneity: assessing social pensions in Peru," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126601, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Bosmans, Kristof & Decancq, Koen & Ooghe, Erwin, 2018. "Who's afraid of aggregating money metrics?," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    15. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    16. Koen Decancq & Erik Schokkaert, 2016. "Beyond GDP: Using Equivalent Incomes to Measure Well-Being in Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 21-55, March.
    17. Harun Onder & Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2019. "Equivalent income versus equivalent lifetime: does the metric matter?," Erudite Working Paper 2019-05, Erudite.
    18. Marc Fleurbaey & Marie-Louise Leroux & Grégory Ponthière, 2010. "Compensating the dead? Yes we can!," PSE Working Papers halshs-00564934, HAL.
    19. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2017. "Wellbeing Inequality and Preference Heterogeneity," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(334), pages 210-238, April.
    20. Fleurbaey, Marc & Ponthiere, Gregory, 2013. "Prevention against equality?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 68-84.

    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:hdl:wpaper:2409. 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: Santiago Burone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csbuabe.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.