IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/hohdps/032017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Labour as a utility measure reconsidered

Author

Listed:
  • Ahlheim, Michael
  • Frör, Oliver
  • Nguyen Minh Duc
  • Rehl, Antonia
  • Siepmann, Ute
  • Pham Van Dinh

Abstract

In Stated Preference studies for the appraisal of environmental projects in poor countries or regions it often turns out that the stated willingness to pay of people for environmental improvements, which is used as measure of individual welfare changes, is very low. This is often interpreted as the result of extremely tight budget constraints, which make it impossible that people express their true appreciation of an environmental project in terms of their willingness to pay for it. Therefore, it is sometimes suggested to use labour contributions instead of money as a numeraire to measure utility in such studies. In this paper we show theoretically and empirically that this suggestion is not compatible with the principles of welfare theory because of several inconsistencies. We also illustrate the validity of our arguments empirically based on the results of a Contingent Valuation study conducted in a rural area in northern Vietnam.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Nguyen Minh Duc & Rehl, Antonia & Siepmann, Ute & Pham Van Dinh, 2017. "Labour as a utility measure reconsidered," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 03-2017, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:hohdps:032017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/155436/1/881398578.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whittington, Dale, 1998. "Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-30, January.
    2. Catherine M. Chambers & Paul E. Chambers & John C. Whitehead, 1998. "Contingent Valuation of Quasi-Public Goods: Validity, Reliability, and Application To Valuing a Historic Site," Public Finance Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 137-154, March.
    3. Douglas Dalenberg & John Fitzgerald & Eric Schuck & John Wicks, 2004. "How Much Is Leisure Worth? Direct Measurement with Contingent Valuation," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 351-365, August.
    4. Aprahamian, Frederic & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stephane, 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Modeling Starting Point Bias as Unobserved Heterogeneity in Contingent Valuation Surveys: An Application to Air Pollution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 1-5, May.
    5. Le Trong Hung & John B. Loomis & Vu Tien Thinh, 2007. "Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: the case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(2), pages 173-185.
    6. Ahlheim, Michael & Schneider, Friedrich, 2013. "Considering household size in contingent valuation studies," MPRA Paper 62898, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Echessah, Protase N. & Swallow, Brent M. & Kamara, Damaris W. & Curry, John J., 1997. "Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: Application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 239-253, February.
    8. Asquith, Nigel M. & Vargas, Maria Teresa & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 675-684, May.
    9. L. F. G. De Cazaux, 1965. "On The Budget," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 264-265.
    10. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    11. Loomis, John B. & Traynor, Kerri & Brown, Thomas C., 1999. "Trichotomous Choice: A Possible Solution To Dual Response Objectives In Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Andreas Pondorfer & Katrin Rehdanz, 2018. "Eliciting Preferences for Public Goods in Nonmonetized Communities: Accounting for Preference Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-86.
    13. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    14. Samuelson, Paul A, 1974. "Complementarity-An Essay on the 40th Anniversary of the Hicks-Allen Revolution in Demand Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 1255-1289, December.
    15. Dale Whittington, 2002. "Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 323-367, June.
    16. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    17. Swallow, B. M. & Woudyalew, M., 1994. "Evaluating willingness to contribute to a local public good: Application of contingent valuation to tsetse control in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 153-161, November.
    18. Whittington, Dale & Smith, V. Kerry & Okorafor, Apia & Okore, Augustine & Liu, Jin Long & McPhail, Alexander, 1992. "Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: A developing country application," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-225, May.
    19. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    20. Lionel McKenzie, 1957. "Demand Theory Without a Utility Index," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 24(3), pages 185-189.
    21. Young-Sook Eom & Douglas Larson, 2006. "Valuing housework time from willingness to spend time and money for environmental quality improvements," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 205-227, September.
    22. John Bergstrom & Kevin Boyle & Mitsuyasu Yabe, 2004. "Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(4), pages 533-549, August.
    23. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    24. Hammitt, James K. & Liu, Jin-Tan & Liu, Jin-Long, 2001. "Contingent valuation of a Taiwanese wetland," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 259-268, May.
    25. Shyamsundar, Priya & Kramer, Randall A., 1996. "Tropical Forest Protection: An Empirical Analysis of the Costs Borne by Local People," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 129-144, September.
    26. Ahlheim, Michael, 1998. "Contingent valuation and the budget constraint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 205-211, November.
    27. Timothy L. McDaniels & Mark S. Kamlet & Gregory W. Fischer, 1992. "Risk Perception and the Value of Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 495-503, December.
    28. Olivier Chanel & Stéphane Luchini, 2007. "Modeling Starting Point Bias as Unobserved Heterogeneity in Contingent Valuation Surveys: An Application to Air Pollution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 533-547.
    29. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    30. Kamuanga, Mulumba & Swallow, Brent M. & Sigue, Hamade & Bauer, Burkhard, 2001. "Evaluating contingent and actual contributions to a local public good: Tsetse control in the Yale agro-pastoral zone, Burkina Faso," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 115-130, October.
    31. Yu, Xiaohua & Abler, David, 2010. "Incorporating zero and missing responses into CVM with open-ended bidding: willingness to pay for blue skies in Beijing," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(5), pages 535-556, October.
    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. Kocsis, Tamás & Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna, 2018. "Gazdag szegények. Időráfordítási hajlandóság a környezeti javak értékelésében [The wealthy poor - "willingness to spend time" in evaluating environmental benefits]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1154-1171.
    2. Vondolia, Godwin K. & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Are non-monetary payment modes more uncertain for stated preference elicitation in developing countries?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 73-87.

    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. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Heinke, Antonia & Duc, Nguyen Minh & Dinh, Pham Van, 2010. "Labour as a utility measure in contingent valuation studies: how good is it really?," FZID Discussion Papers 13-2010, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    2. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    3. Vondolia, Godwin K. & Navrud, Ståle, 2019. "Are non-monetary payment modes more uncertain for stated preference elicitation in developing countries?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 73-87.
    4. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    5. Andreas Pondorfer & Katrin Rehdanz, 2018. "Eliciting Preferences for Public Goods in Nonmonetized Communities: Accounting for Preference Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-86.
    6. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    7. Kocsis, Tamás & Marjainé, Szerényi Zsuzsanna, 2018. "Gazdag szegények. Időráfordítási hajlandóság a környezeti javak értékelésében [The wealthy poor - "willingness to spend time" in evaluating environmental benefits]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1154-1171.
    8. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Nicholson, Charles F., 2020. "Revisiting money and labor for valuing environmental goods and services in developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    9. Diafas, Iason & Barkmann, Jan & Mburu, John, 2017. "Measurement of Bequest Value Using a Non-monetary Payment in a Choice Experiment—The Case of Improving Forest Ecosystem Services for the Benefit of Local Communities in Rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 157-165.
    10. Tilahun, Mesfin & Vranken, Liesbet & Muys, Bart & Deckers, Jozef A. & Gebregziabher, Kidanemariam & Gebrehiwot, Kindeya & Bauer, Hans & Mathijs, Erik, 2012. "Rural Households’ Demand for Frankincense Forest Conservation in Tigray: A Continent Valuation Analysis," Working Papers 146520, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    11. Ahlheim, Michael & Schneider, Friedrich, 2013. "Considering household size in Contingent Valuation studies," FZID Discussion Papers 68-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    12. Hagedoorn, Liselotte C. & Koetse, Mark J. & van Beukering, Pieter J.H. & Brander, Luke M., 2021. "Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time contributions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    13. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Diriba Abdeta, 2022. "Households' willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ethiopia: A review," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(11), pages 437-451.
    15. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    16. A. K. M. Abdullah Al-Amin & Khorshed Alam & Uttam Babu Shrestha & Masudul Haque Prodhan & Mostafa A. R. Hossain & Nahid Sattar & M. J. Hossain & Tahmina Akhter, 2021. "Ecosystems, livelihood assets and willingness to pay for wetland conservation in Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(12), pages 17503-17534, December.
    17. Michael Ahlheim & Oliver Frör & Antonia Heinke & Alwin Keil & Nguyen Minh Duc & Pham Van Dinh & Camille Saint-Macary & Manfred Zeller, 2008. "Landslides in mountainous regions of Northern Vietnam: Causes, protection strategies and the assessment of economic losses," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 298/2008, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    18. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    19. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    20. Sutton, William R. & Larson, Douglas M. & Jarvis, Lovell S., 2002. "A New Approach To Contingent Valuation For Assessing The Costs Of Living With Wildlife In Developing Countries," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19848, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Contingent Valuation; Cost-benefit Analysis; Developing Countries; Public Expenditures; Vietnam; Willingness to work;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:zbw:hohdps:032017. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwhohde.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.