IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v74y2019i1d10.1007_s10640-019-00321-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Batley

    (University of Leeds)

  • Thijs Dekker

    (University of Leeds)

Abstract

Small and Rosen’s (Econometrica 49(1):105–130, 1981) method for measuring consumer surplus using discrete choice models has been widely adopted in public policy analysis. For the case of a price change, the present paper elucidates five theoretical assumptions inherent within Small and Rosen’s measure, and employs indifference maps to demonstrate that this measure is only applicable to the context of a single discrete choice free of non-linear income effects. The paper argues that, where non-linear income effects are present, the aforementioned theoretical assumptions should be relaxed, and the consumption context revised from discrete choice to discrete–continuous demand. Furthermore, the paper proposes a simple analytical method for approximating the expected Hicksian compensating variation in the presence of non-linear income effects, and compares the empirical performance of this method against existing methods using data from Morey et al. (Am J Agric Econ 75(3):578–592, 1993). As well as offering a simple approximation, the proposed method yields insights on the potential range of the compensating variation depending on the extent of switching between choice alternatives, and on the attribution of the compensating variation to the relevant choice alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Batley & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 337-366, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:74:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10640-019-00321-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10640-019-00321-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-019-00321-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10640-019-00321-2?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claude Hillinger, 2001. "Money Metric, Consumer Surplus and Welfare Measurement," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 2(2), pages 177-193, May.
    2. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    3. Diewert, W E, 1992. "Exact and Superlative Welfare Change Indicators," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(4), pages 562-582, October.
    4. J. R. Hicks, 1943. "The Four Consumer's Surpluses," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 11(1), pages 31-41.
    5. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1999. "Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(1), pages 62-72, February.
    6. Hau, Timothy Doe-Kwong, 1985. "A Hicksian Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis with Discrete-Choice Models," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 52(208), pages 479-490, November.
    7. Edward R. Morey & Robert D. Rowe & Michael Watson, 1993. "A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 578-592.
    8. Edward R. Morey & William S. Breffle & Pamela A. Greene, 2001. "Two Nested Constant-Elasticity-of-Substitution Models of Recreational Participation and Site Choice: An ‘Alternatives’ Model and an ‘Expenditures’ Model," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 414-427.
    9. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K. & McFadden, Daniel, 1995. "A utility-consistent, combined discrete choice and count data model Assessing recreational use losses due to natural resource damage," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 1-30, January.
    10. Hanemann, W. Michael, 1982. "Applied Welfare Analysis with Qualitative Response Models," CUDARE Working Papers 7160, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    11. André Palma & Karim Kilani, 2011. "Transition choice probabilities and welfare analysis in additive random utility models," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(3), pages 427-454, April.
    12. Jara-Díaz, Sergio R. & Videla, Jorge, 1989. "Detection of income effect in mode choice: Theory and application," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 393-400, December.
    13. John K. Dagsvik & Anders Karlström, 2005. "Compensating Variation and Hicksian Choice Probabilities in Random Utility Models that are Nonlinear in Income," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(1), pages 57-76.
    14. J. R. Hicks, 1942. "Consumers' Surplus and Index-Numbers," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 9(2), pages 126-137.
    15. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    16. Bhat, Chandra R., 2005. "A multiple discrete-continuous extreme value model: formulation and application to discretionary time-use decisions," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 679-707, September.
    17. Igal Hendel, 1999. "Estimating Multiple-Discrete Choice Models: An Application to Computerization Returns," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(2), pages 423-446.
    18. Hyman, Geoff & Daly, Andrew, 2014. "The attribution of transport user benefits by source using discrete choice models," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 103-111.
    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. Hasnine, Md Sami & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2020. "Transportation demand management (TDM) and social justice: A case study of differential impacts of TDM strategies on various income groups," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Stefano Bortolomiol & Virginie Lurkin & Michel Bierlaire, 2022. "Price-based regulation of oligopolistic markets under discrete choice models of demand," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1441-1463, October.
    3. Ramos, Raúl & Silva, Hugo E., 2023. "Fare evasion in public transport: How does it affect the optimal design and pricing?," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Hancock, Thomas O. & Broekaert, Jan & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2020. "Quantum probability: A new method for modelling travel behaviour," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 165-198.
    5. Wuyang Hu & Shan Sun & Jerrod Penn & Ping Qing, 2022. "Dummy and effects coding variables in discrete choice analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1770-1788, October.

    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. Min Qiang Zhao & Ju-Chin Huang, 2018. "The Representative Consumer Approximation Bias in Discrete Choice Welfare Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 969-984, December.
    2. Batley, Richard & Nicolás Ibáñez, J., 2013. "On the path independence conditions for discrete-continuous demand," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 13-23.
    3. 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.
    4. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Riera Font, Antoni, 2010. "Estimating the aggregate value of forest recreation in a regional context," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 205-216, August.
    5. Paolo Delle Site & André de Palma & Karim Kilani, 2021. "Consumers’ welfare and compensating variation: survey and mode choice application," THEMA Working Papers 2021-11, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    6. Delle Site, Paolo & Salucci, Marco Valerio, 2013. "Transition choice probabilities and welfare analysis in random utility models with imperfect before–after correlation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 215-242.
    7. Dekker, Thijs, 2014. "Indifference based value of time measures for Random Regret Minimisation models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 10-20.
    8. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    9. A. de Palma & K. Kilani, 2003. "Compensating Variation for Discrete Choice Models," THEMA Working Papers 2003-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    10. Lew, Daniel K., 1999. "Multi-Purpose Trip Valuation in Recreation Demand Models: Some Methodological Approaches," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 271486, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. 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.
    12. Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "A closed-form multiple discrete-count extreme value (MDCNTEV) model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 65-86.
    13. Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "A new closed-form two-stage budgeting-based multiple discrete-continuous model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 162-192.
    14. Chattopadhyay, Sudip, 2009. "The random expenditure function approach to welfare in RUM: The case of hazardous waste clean-up," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 58-74, January.
    15. Sandström, Mikael, 1996. "Recreational Benefits from Improved Water Quality: A Random Utility Model of Swedish Seaside Recreation," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 121, Stockholm School of Economics.
    16. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    17. Anas, Alex & Chang, Huibin, 2023. "Productivity benefits of urban transportation megaprojects: A general equilibrium analysis of «Grand Paris Express»," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    18. Kidokoro, Yukihiro, 2016. "A micro foundation for discrete choice models with multiple categories of goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 54-72.
    19. Dagsvik John K., 2010. "Making Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach Operational: A Random Scale Framework for Empirical Modeling," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201005, University of Turin.
    20. von Haefen, Roger H., 2003. "Incorporating observed choice into the construction of welfare measures from random utility models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 145-165, March.

    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:kap:enreec:v:74:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10640-019-00321-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.