IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jbcoan/v10y2019i01p1-38_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Most Consumers Don’t Buy Hybrids: Is Rational Choice a Sufficient Explanation?

Author

Listed:
  • Duncan, Denvil
  • Ku, Arthur Lin
  • Julian, Alyssa
  • Carley, Sanya
  • Siddiki, Saba
  • Zirogiannis, Nikolaos
  • Graham, John D.

Abstract

Although federal regulation of vehicle fuel economy is often seen as environmental policy, over 70% of the estimated benefits of the 2017–2025 federal standards are savings in consumer expenditures on gasoline. Rational-choice economists question the counting of these benefits since studies show that the fuel efficiency of a car is reflected in its price at sale and resale. We contribute to this debate by exploring why most consumers in the United States do not purchase a proven fuel-saving innovation: the hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV). A database of 110 vehicle pairs is assembled where a consumer can choose a hybrid or gasoline version of virtually the same vehicle. Few choose the HEV. A total cost of ownership model is used to estimate payback periods for the price premiums associated with the HEV choice. In a majority of cases, a rational-choice explanation is sufficient to understand consumer disinterest in the HEV. However, in a significant minority of cases, a rational-choice explanation is not readily apparent, even when non-pecuniary attributes (e.g., performance and cargo space) are considered. Future research should examine, from a behavioral economics perspective, why consumers do not choose HEVs when pricing and payback periods appear to be favorable.

Suggested Citation

  • Duncan, Denvil & Ku, Arthur Lin & Julian, Alyssa & Carley, Sanya & Siddiki, Saba & Zirogiannis, Nikolaos & Graham, John D., 2019. "Most Consumers Don’t Buy Hybrids: Is Rational Choice a Sufficient Explanation?," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-38, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jbcoan:v:10:y:2019:i:01:p:1-38_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2194588818000246/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:jbcoan:v:10:y:2019:i:01:p:1-38_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bca .

    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.