Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Heterogeneity assumptions in the specification of bargaining models: a study of household level trade-offs between commuting time and salary

Contents:

Author Info

  • Vikki O’Neill

    ()

  • Stephane Hess

    ()

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    With many real world decisions being made in conjunction with other decision makers, or single agent decisions having an influence on other members of the decision maker’s immediate entourage, there is strong interest in studying the relative weight assigned to different agents in such contexts. In the present paper, we focus on the case of one member of a two person household being asked to make choices affecting the travel time and salary of both members. We highlight the presence of significant heterogeneity across individuals not just in their underlying sensitivities, but also in the relative weight they assign to their partner, and show how this weight varies across attributes. This is in contrast to existing work which uses weights assigned to individual agents at the level of the overall utility rather than for individual attributes. We also show clear evidence of a risk of confounding between heterogeneity in marginal sensitivities and heterogeneity in the weights assigned to each member. We show how this can lead to misleading model results, and argue that this may also explain past results showing bargaining or weight parameters outside the usual [0,1] range in more traditional joint decision making contexts. In terms of substantive results, we find that male respondents place more weight on their partner’s travel time, while female respondents place more weight on their partner’s salary. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11116-013-9483-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Transportation.

    Volume (Year): 41 (2014)
    Issue (Month): 4 (July)
    Pages: 745-763

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:41:y:2014:i:4:p:745-763

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=103007

    Related research

    Keywords: Household decisions; Distributional assumptions; Random coefficients; Joint decisions; Bargaining coefficient;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Elizabeth Katz, 1997. "The Intra-Household Economics of Voice and Exit," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 25-46.
    2. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2, Spring.
    3. Frederic Vermeulen, 2000. "Collective household models: principles and main results," Public Economics Working Paper Series ces0028, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën, Working Group Public Economics.
    4. Ian Bateman & Alistair Munro, 2005. "An Experiment on Risky Choice Amongst Households," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(502), pages C176-C189, 03.
    5. Martin Browning & P.A. Chiappori, 1996. "Efficient Intra-Household Allocations - A General Characterization and Empirical Tests," Discussion Papers 96-10, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    6. Alistair Munro, 2009. "Introduction to the Special Issue: Things We Do and Don’t Understand About the Household and the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(1), pages 1-10, May.
    7. Lampietti, Julian, 1999. "Do husbands and wives make the same choices? Evidence from Northern Ethiopia," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 253-260, February.
    8. Dosman, Donna & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2002. "Combining Stated And Revealed Preference Data To Construct An Empirical Examination Of Intrahousehold Bargaining," Staff Paper Series 24084, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    9. Nesha Beharry-Borg & David Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "An Analytical Framework for Joint vs Separate Decisions by Couples in Choice Experiments: The Case of Coastal Water Quality in Tobago," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(1), pages 95-117, May.
    10. Edoardo Marcucci & Amanda Stathopoulos & Lucia Rotaris & Romeo Danielis, 2011. "Comparing single and joint preferences: a choice experiment on residential location in three-member households," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 43(5), pages 1209-1225, May.
    11. Hess, Stephane & Bierlaire, Michel & Polak, John W., 2005. "Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 221-236.
    12. David A. Hensher & John M. Rose & Ian Black, 2008. "Interactive Agency Choice in Automobile Purchase Decisions: The Role of Negotiation in Determining Equilibrium Choice Outcomes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and University of Bath, vol. 42(2), pages 269-296, May.
    13. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    14. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    15. Wiktor Adamowicz & Michel Hanemann & Joffre Swait & Reed Johnson & David Layton & Michel Regenwetter & Torsten Reimer & Robert Sorkin, 2005. "Decision Strategy and Structure in Households: A “Groups” Perspective," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 387-399, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:41:y:2014:i:4:p:745-763. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.