IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-97-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Welfare Measurement and Representative Consumer Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, V. Kerry
  • Von Haefen, Roger

Abstract

This paper generalizes results from Anderson, De Palma, and Thisse [1992] linking individual random utility and aggregate representative individual demand models, to consider a comparable relation for the willingness to pay functions for quality attributes of marketed goods. It also suggests how the logic can be used to describe links between choice occasion and aggregate models (across occasions) for an individual.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, V. Kerry & Von Haefen, Roger, 1997. "Welfare Measurement and Representative Consumer Theory," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-32, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-97-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-97-32.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. ANDERSON, Simon P. & de PALMA, André & THISSE, Jacques-François, 1992. "Interpretations of the logit discrete choice models and the theory of product differentiation," LIDAM Reprints CORE 1017, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. Verboven, Frank, 1996. "The nested logit model and representative consumer theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 57-63, January.
    3. Desvouges, William H. & Naughton, Michael C. & Parsons, George R., 1992. "Benefits transfer: conceptual problems in estimating water quality benefits using existing studies," MPRA Paper 36405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Zvi Griliches, 1964. "Notes on the Measurement of Price and Quality Changes," NBER Chapters, in: Models of Income Determination, pages 381-418, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Parsons George R. & Kealy Mary Jo, 1995. "A Demand Theory for Number of Trips in a Random Utility Model of Recreation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 357-367, November.
    6. Anderson, Simon P. & De Palma, Andre & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1987. "The CES is a discrete choice model?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 139-140.
    7. Morey Edward R., 1994. "What Is Consumer's Surplus Per Day of Use, When Is It a Constant Independent of the Number of Days of Use, and What Does It Tell Us about Consumers Surplus?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 257-270, May.
    8. Daniel McFadden, 1996. "Computing Willingness-to-Pay in Random Utility Models," Working Papers _011, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
    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. J-D Lee & A Repkine & S-W Hwang & T-Y Kim, 2004. "Estimating consumers' willingness to pay for individual quality attributes with DEA," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(10), pages 1064-1070, October.
    2. 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.

    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. Carpentier, Alain & Letort, Elodie, 2009. "Modeling acreage decisions within the multinomial Logit framework," Working Papers 211011, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    2. David Berger & Kyle Herkenhoff & Simon Mongey, 2022. "Labor Market Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(4), pages 1147-1193, April.
    3. David W. Berger & Kyle F. Herkenhoff & Simon Mongey, 2022. "Minimum Wages, Efficiency and Welfare," Opportunity and Inclusive Growth Institute Working Papers 058, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    4. Daniel J. Phaneuf & Catherine L. Kling & Joseph A. Herriges, 2000. "Estimation and Welfare Calculations in a Generalized Corner Solution Model with an Application to Recreation Demand," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 83-92, February.
    5. Simon P. Anderson & André De Palma, 2006. "Market Performance With Multiproduct Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 95-124, March.
    6. Maican, Florin & Orth, Matilda, 2021. "Determinants of economies of scope in retail," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    7. Ivaldi, Marc & Verboven, Frank, 2005. "Quantifying the effects from horizontal mergers in European competition policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 669-691, December.
    8. Maican, Florin & Orth, Matilda, 2021. "Entry Regulations and Product Variety in Retail," CEPR Discussion Papers 15992, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Miklós Koren & Roc Armenter, 2017. "Everything all the time? Entry and Exit in U.S. Import Varieties," 2017 Meeting Papers 829, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    10. Pham, Hoang, 2023. "Trade reform, oligopsony, and labor market distortion: Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    11. Sylvia Bleker & Christiaan Behrens & Paul Koster & Erik T. Verhoef, 2014. "Market Structure and the Pricing of New Products: A Nested Logit Approach with Asymmetric Firms," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-142/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Shaw, W. Douglass & Ragland, Shannon E. & Callaway, J. Mac & Keefe, Sally, 1996. "Using Actual And Contingent Behavior Data With Differing Levels Of Time Aggregation To Model Recreation Demand," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 21(1), pages 1-20, July.
    13. Simon P. Anderson & André de Palma, 2012. "Competition for attention in the Information (overload) Age," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 1-25, March.
    14. Mogens Fosgerau & André de Palma, 2016. "Generalized entropy models," Working Papers hal-01291347, HAL.
    15. Stennek, Johan & Tangerås, Thomas, 2006. "Competition vs. Regulation in Mobile Telecommunications," Working Paper Series 685, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    16. Ariu, Andrea & Breinlich, Holger & Corcos, Gregory & Mion, Giordano, 2019. "The interconnections between services and goods trade at the firm-level," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 173-188.
    17. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    18. Parsons, George R. & Jakus, Paul M. & Tomasi, Ted, 1999. "A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 143-157, September.
    19. Pierre Picard & Takatoshi Tabuchi, 2010. "Self-organized agglomerations and transport costs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 42(3), pages 565-589, March.
    20. Larson, Douglas & Shaikh, Sabina, 1999. "Empirical Specification Requirements for Two-Constraint Models of Recreation Demand," Western Region Archives 321713, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-97-32. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.