IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kue/epaper/e-19-001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deregulation and status quo bias: Evidence from stated and revealed switching behaviors in the electricity market in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Kayo MURAKAMI
  • Takanori IDA

Abstract

This study investigates consumers’ status quo bias against new alternatives after deregulation in the residential electricity market in Japan. We conducted two choice experiments using online surveys before and after deregulation, and analyzed the relationship between consumers’ stated preferences and their revealed switching behaviors. The results indicate that the average Japanese consumer experiences status quo bias in electricity plan choice; consumers preferred to remain with their default provider despite the obvious 5% bill savings that could be gained from switching to a new provider. Moreover, respondents who did not switch in the real market became twice as attached to their default plan after their actual decision. In addition, respondents who switched soon after deregulation had a higher stated preference for renewable energy sources. This implies that new electricity plans that enhance clean energy have more potential to moderate consumer status quo bias in electricity plan choice. By simulating the potential share of new providers in the liberalized market, we found that a 50% renewable-energy plan has a larger potential market share than a plan that offers a 7% bill reduction under price competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Kayo MURAKAMI & Takanori IDA, 2019. "Deregulation and status quo bias: Evidence from stated and revealed switching behaviors in the electricity market in Japan," Discussion papers e-19-001, Graduate School of Economics , Kyoto University.
    • Handle: RePEc:kue:epaper:e-19-001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dp/papers/e-19-001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C., 2004. "Plan Design and 401(K) Savings Outcomes," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 57(2), pages 275-298, June.
    2. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Stephen P. Ryan & Paul Schrimpf & Mark R. Cullen, 2013. "Selection on Moral Hazard in Health Insurance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 178-219, February.
    3. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    4. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2008. "Does it matter when a power outage occurs? -- A choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to avoid power outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1232-1245, May.
    5. Pepermans, Guido, 2011. "The value of continuous power supply for Flemish households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7853-7864.
    6. Broberg, Thomas & Persson, Lars, 2016. "Is our everyday comfort for sale? Preferences for demand management on the electricity market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 24-32.
    7. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    8. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    9. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    11. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    12. Goto, Mika & Tsutsui, Miki, 2008. "Technical efficiency and impacts of deregulation: An analysis of three functions in U.S. electric power utilities during the period from 1992 through 2000," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 15-38, January.
    13. Ida, Takanori & Takemura, Kosuke & Sato, Masayuki, 2015. "Inner conflict between nuclear power generation and electricity rates: A Japanese case study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 61-69.
    14. Löfgren, Åsa & Martinsson, Peter & Hennlock, Magnus & Sterner, Thomas, 2012. "Are experienced people affected by a pre-set default option—Results from a field experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 66-72.
    15. Akerlof, George A & Dickens, William T, 1982. "The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 307-319, June.
    16. Benjamin R. Handel & Jonathan T. Kolstad, 2015. "Health Insurance for "Humans": Information Frictions, Plan Choice, and Consumer Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(8), pages 2449-2500, August.
    17. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard Thaler, 2007. "Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 81-104, Summer.
    18. Murakami, Kayo & Ida, Takanori & Tanaka, Makoto & Friedman, Lee, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 178-189.
    19. Andrew A. Goett & Kathleen Hudson & Kenneth E. Train, 2000. "Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-28.
    20. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    21. Heiner, Ronald A, 1983. "The Origin of Predictable Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 560-595, September.
    22. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    23. Eugenio J. Miravete, 2003. "Choosing the Wrong Calling Plan? Ignorance and Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 297-310, March.
    24. Buryk, Stephen & Mead, Doug & Mourato, Susana & Torriti, Jacopo, 2015. "Investigating preferences for dynamic electricity tariffs: The effect of environmental and system benefit disclosure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 190-195.
    25. Herter, Karen, 2007. "Residential implementation of critical-peak pricing of electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2121-2130, April.
    26. Benjamin R. Handel, 2013. "Adverse Selection and Inertia in Health Insurance Markets: When Nudging Hurts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2643-2682, December.
    27. Razeghi, Ghazal & Shaffer, Brendan & Samuelsen, Scott, 2017. "Impact of electricity deregulation in the state of California," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 105-115.
    28. Koichiro Ito & Takanori Ida & Makoto Tanaka, 2018. "Moral Suasion and Economic Incentives: Field Experimental Evidence from Energy Demand," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 240-267, February.
    29. Ahmad Faruqui & Sanem Sergici, 2010. "Household response to dynamic pricing of electricity: a survey of 15 experiments," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 193-225, October.
    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. Broberg, Thomas & Persson, Lars, 2016. "Is our everyday comfort for sale? Preferences for demand management on the electricity market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 24-32.
    2. Amador, Francisco Javier & González, Rosa Marina & Ramos-Real, Francisco Javier, 2013. "Supplier choice and WTP for electricity attributes in an emerging market: The role of perceived past experience, environmental concern and energy saving behavior," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 953-966.
    3. Bernadeta Gołębiowska, 2020. "Preferences for demand side management—a review of choice experiment studies," Working Papers 2020-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Broberg, Thomas & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Persson, Lars, 2021. "Household preferences for load restrictions: Is there an effect of pro-environmental framing?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Bertsch, Valentin & Harold, Jason & Fell, Harrison, 2019. "Consumer preferences for end-use specific curtailable electricity contracts on household appliances during peak load hours," Papers WP632, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    6. Ida, Takanori & Takemura, Kosuke & Sato, Masayuki, 2015. "Inner conflict between nuclear power generation and electricity rates: A Japanese case study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 61-69.
    7. Murakami, Kayo & Ida, Takanori & Tanaka, Makoto & Friedman, Lee, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 178-189.
    8. Buryk, Stephen & Mead, Doug & Mourato, Susana & Torriti, Jacopo, 2015. "Investigating preferences for dynamic electricity tariffs: The effect of environmental and system benefit disclosure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 190-195.
    9. Harold, Jason & Bertsch, Valentin & Fell, Harrison, 2021. "Preferences for curtailable electricity contracts: Can curtailment benefit consumers and the electricity system?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    10. Gołębiowska, Bernadeta & Bartczak, Anna & Budziński, Wiktor, 2021. "Impact of social comparison on preferences for Demand Side Management in Poland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    11. Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu, 2020. "Towards Sustainable Energy Consumption Electricity Demand Flexibility and Household Fuel Choice," Umeå Economic Studies 971, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    12. Swantje Sundt & Katrin Rehdanz & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2020. "Consumers’ Willingness to Accept Time-of-Use Tariffs for Shifting Electricity Demand," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    13. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    14. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Ida, Takanori & Goto, Rei, 2009. "Interdependency among addictive behaviours and time/risk preferences: Discrete choice model analysis of smoking, drinking, and gambling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 608-621, August.
    16. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    17. Ozbafli, Aygul & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2016. "Estimating the willingness to pay for reliable electricity supply: A choice experiment study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 443-452.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Gutsche, Gunnar & Ziegler, Andreas, 2019. "Which private investors are willing to pay for sustainable investments? Empirical evidence from stated choice experiments," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 193-214.
    20. Morrissey, Karyn & Plater, Andrew & Dean, Mary, 2018. "The cost of electric power outages in the residential sector: A willingness to pay approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 141-150.

    More about this item

    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:kue:epaper:e-19-001. 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: Graduate School of Economics Project Center (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fekyojp.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.