IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sajeco/v90y2022i1p3-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to pay for COVID‐19 test and vaccine in South Africa and Ghana: A contingent valuation study

Author

Listed:
  • Rebecca Nana Yaa Ayifah
  • Emmanuel Ayifah

Abstract

Although from a public health perspective, governments are expected to finance the cost of testing and vaccination against the COVID‐19 pandemic, most African countries do not have the resources to do these. Individuals' willingness to pay (WTP) for COVID‐19 testing and vaccination is thus crucial. We employ the Contingent Valuation Method to assess WTP for COVID‐19 testing and vaccine and also investigate factors associated with WTP in South Africa and Ghana. On average, respondents in South Africa are willing to pay US$16.29 for COVID‐19 testing, whereas those in Ghana are willing to pay US$9.69. In terms of the COVID‐19 vaccine, South Africans are willing to pay twice (US$41.83) as high as the amount Ghanaians are willing to pay (US$20.36). The results from the probit and tobit estimations on factors associated with WTP show that WTP for COVID‐19 testing and vaccine are correlated with income, education, employment, gender, having tested for COVID‐19, travel experience, and low satisfaction with the government's COVID‐19 measures. These findings suggest that the private sector can play a crucial role in COVID‐19 testing and the deployment of COVID‐19 vaccines because people are willing to pay. However, there may be a need for subsidisation for the poor.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebecca Nana Yaa Ayifah & Emmanuel Ayifah, 2022. "Willingness to pay for COVID‐19 test and vaccine in South Africa and Ghana: A contingent valuation study," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 90(1), pages 3-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sajeco:v:90:y:2022:i:1:p:3-20
    DOI: 10.1111/saje.12311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/saje.12311
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/saje.12311?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    3. Dost, Florian & Wilken, Robert, 2012. "Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: When should we care?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 148-166.
    4. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    5. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    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. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    3. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Ary José A. de Souza-Jr. & Flávio Terto, 2021. "The propensity to adaptation under the new era of climate changes," Working Papers REM 2021/0167, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    5. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    6. Shao, Wei & Lye, Ashley & Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn, 2009. "Different strokes for different folks: A method to accommodate decision -making heterogeneity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 495-501.
    7. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    9. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    10. Pizzi, Gabriele & Scarpi, Daniele & Marzocchi, Gian Luca, 2014. "Showing a tree to sell the forest: The impact of attribute- and alternative-based information presentation on consumers’ choices," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 41-51.
    11. Joonwook Park & Wayne DeSarbo & John Liechty, 2008. "A Hierarchical Bayesian Multidimensional Scaling Methodology for Accommodating Both Structural and Preference Heterogeneity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 451-472, September.
    12. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2008. "Generating Objectives: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 56-70, January.
    13. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    14. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2011. "The effects of information about health hazards in food on consumers' choice process," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 140-147, May.
    15. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.
    16. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann & Christian Kaiser, 2007. "The effect of product variety on purchase probability," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 111-131, August.
    17. Stefano Ficco & Vladimir Karamychev & Peran van Reeven, 2006. "A Theory of Procedurally Rational Choice: Optimization without Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 06-001/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Olivier Chanel & Khaled Makhloufi & Mohammad Abu-Zaineh, 2017. "Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 385-398, June.
    19. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    20. Frank J. van Rijnsoever & Carolina Castaldi, 2008. "Perceived technology clusters and ownership of related technologies: the case of consumer electronics," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-17, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Jun 2008.

    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:bla:sajeco:v:90:y:2022:i:1:p:3-20. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essaaea.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.