IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lsu/lsuwpp/2009-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Revealed Preference Feasibility Condition for Weak Complementarity

Author

Listed:
  • David G. Brown

Abstract

It is widely reported in the literature that it is not possible to test nonmarket good preference restrictions against revealed preference. While it is clearly impossible to affirm any particular preference restriction as being �true,� it is possible to show that a preference restriction is not feasible. A revealed preference feasibility test for weak complementarity is presented here. With weak complementarity defined by the observable property of nonessentiality and the unobservable property of no-existencevalue, the latter is the actual preference restriction. It is shown that no-existencevalue is feasible if and only if an observable revealed preference condition of �singlepreference� is satisfied. This strong revealed preference condition is nontrivial when there are two or more market goods in addition to the weak complement. With simple Samuelsonian revealed preference we can falsify single-preference and thereby reject weak complementarity. Stone-Geary numeric examples are included to demonstrate these and other results.

Suggested Citation

  • David G. Brown, 2009. "A Revealed Preference Feasibility Condition for Weak Complementarity," Departmental Working Papers 2009-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:lsu:lsuwpp:2009-08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.lsu.edu/business/economics/files/workingpapers/pap09_08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David S. Bullock & Nicholas Minot, 2006. "On Measuring the Value of a Nonmarket Good Using Market Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 961-973.
    2. Udo Ebert, 1998. "Evaluation of Nonmarket Goods: Recovering Unconditional Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 241-254.
    3. Varian, Hal R., 1988. "Revealed preference with a subset of goods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 179-185, October.
    4. von Haefen, Roger H., 2007. "Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 15-31, July.
    5. Bockstael, N E & McConnell, K E, 1993. "Public Goods as Characteristics of Non-market Commodities," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(420), pages 1244-1257, September.
    6. Larson, Douglas M., 1991. "Recovering weakly complementary preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 97-108, September.
    7. Ebert, Udo, 2001. "A general approach to the evaluation of nonmarket goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 373-388, October.
    8. Nancy E. Bockstael & Catherine L. Kling, 1988. "Valuing Environmental Quality: Weak Complementarity with Sets of Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 654-662.
    9. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2005. "Weak complementarity, path independence, and the intuition of the Willig condition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 103-115, January.
    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. David G. Brown, 2008. "Preference-Theoretic Weak Complementarity: Getting More with Less," Departmental Working Papers 2008-09, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    2. V. Smith & Mary Evans & H. Banzhaf & Christine Poulos, 2010. "Can Weak Substitution be Rehabilitated?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 203-221, February.
    3. Ebert, Udo, 2007. "Revealed preference and household production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 276-289, March.
    4. Phaneuf, Daniel J. & Smith, V. Kerry, 2006. "Recreation Demand Models," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 671-761, Elsevier.
    5. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2004. "What's the use? welfare estimates from revealed preference models when weak complementarity does not hold," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 55-70, January.
    6. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2005. "Weak complementarity, path independence, and the intuition of the Willig condition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 103-115, January.
    7. Laura Blow & Richard Blundell, 2018. "A Nonparametric Revealed Preference Approach to Measuring the Value of Environmental Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 503-527, March.
    8. von Haefen, Roger H., 2007. "Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 15-31, July.
    9. Smith, V. Kerry, 2000. "JEEM and Non-market Valuation: 1974-1998," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-374, May.
    10. Kovacs, Kent F. & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Recreation at open space and residential development patterns," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 271502, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Udo Ebert, 2010. "On the Measurement of Welfare for Market and Nonmarket Goods: A Numerical Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 102-109.
    12. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
    13. David G. Brown, 2008. "Falsifying the �Goodness� of Nonmarket Goods with Revealed Preference," Departmental Working Papers 2008-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    14. Larson, Douglas & Lew, Daniel & Loomis, John, 1999. "Are Revealed Preference Measures of Quality Change Benefits Statistically Significant?," Western Region Archives 321712, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    15. Cunha-e-Sa, Maria A. & Ducla-Soares, Maria M., 1999. "Specification Tests for Mixed Demand Systems with an Emphasis on Combining Contingent Valuation and Revealed Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 215-233, September.
    16. Daniel H. Karney & Khyati Malik, 2024. "The WTP-WTA Gap for Public Goods: New Insights from Compensating and Equivalent Variation Closed-Form Solutions," Papers 2401.15493, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    17. Dan Phaneuf, 2000. "Choice Set Definition Issues in a Kuhn-Tucker Model of Recreation Demand," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1821, Econometric Society.
    18. Irina Klytchnikova & Michael Lokshin, 2009. "Measuring Welfare Gains from Better Quality Infrastructure," Journal of Infrastructure Development, India Development Foundation, vol. 1(2), pages 87-109, December.
    19. Hanemann, Michael & Labandeira, Xavier & Labeaga, José M. & Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe, 2024. "Discrete-continuous models of residential energy demand: A comprehensive review," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    20. Alain Carpentier & Dominique Vermersch, 1997. "Measuring willingness to pay for drinking water quality using the econometrics of equivalence scales [Mesure du consentement à payer pour une qualité d'eau potable au moyen de la méthode économétri," Post-Print hal-02841037, HAL.

    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:lsu:lsuwpp:2009-08. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/delsuus.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.