Experimental methods and the welfare evaluation of policy lotteries
AbstractPolicies impose lotteries of outcomes on individuals, since we never know exactly what the effects of the policy will be. In order to evaluate alternative policies, we need to make assumptions about individual preferences, even before social welfare functions are applied. There are two broad ways in which experimental methods are used to evaluate policy. One is to use experiments to estimate individual preferences, valuations and beliefs and use those estimates as priors in policy evaluation. The other is to use randomisation to infer the effects of policy. The strengths, weaknesses and complementarities of these approaches are reviewed. , Oxford University Press.
Download InfoIf 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.
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 InfoArticle provided by Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics in its journal European Review of Agricultural Economics.
Volume (Year): 38 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (August)
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://www.erae.oupjournals.org/
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Glenn W. Harrison, 2011. "Experimental Methods and the Welfare Evaluation of Policy Lotteries," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2011-08, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Matter? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Discussion Papers 158146, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
- Charness, Gary & Viceisza, Angelino, 2011.
"Comprehension and risk elicitation in the field: Evidence from rural Senegal,"
IFPRI discussion papers
1135, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- Charness, Gary & Viceisza, Angelino, 2012. "Comprehension and Risk Elicitation in the Field: Evidence from Rural Senegal," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt5512d150, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.