IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03866196.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What drives the acceptability of restrictive health policies: An experimental assessment of individual preferences for anti-COVID 19 strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Thierry Blayac

    (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier)

  • Dimitri Dubois

    (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier)

  • Sébastien Duchêne

    (Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier (GSCM) - Montpellier Business School)

  • Phu Nguyen-Van

    (EconomiX - EconomiX - UPN - Université Paris Nanterre - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Bruno Ventelou

    (AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, ORS PACA - Observatoire régional de la santé Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur [Marseille])

  • Marc Willinger

    (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier)

Abstract

The public acceptability of a policy is an important issue in democracies, in particular for anti-COVID-19 policies, which require the adherence of the population to be applicable and efficient. Discrete choice experiment (DCE) can help elicit preference ranking among various policies for the whole population and subgroups. Using a representative sample of the French population, we apply DCE methods to assess the acceptability of various anti-COVID-19 measures, separately and as a package. Owing to the methods, we determine the extent to which acceptability depends on personal characteristics: political orientation, health vulnerability, or age. The young population differs in terms of policy preferences and their claim for monetary compensation, suggesting a tailored policy for them. The paper provides key methodological tools based on microeconomic evaluation of individuals' preferences for improving the design of public health policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Thierry Blayac & Dimitri Dubois & Sébastien Duchêne & Phu Nguyen-Van & Bruno Ventelou & Marc Willinger, 2022. "What drives the acceptability of restrictive health policies: An experimental assessment of individual preferences for anti-COVID 19 strategies," Post-Print hal-03866196, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03866196
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2022.106047
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://amu.hal.science/hal-03866196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://amu.hal.science/hal-03866196/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.106047?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adema, Joop & Nikolka, Till & Poutvaara, Panu & Sunde, Uwe, 2022. "On the stability of risk preferences: Measurement matters," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    2. Edgell, Amanda B. & Lachapelle, Jean & Lührmann, Anna & Maerz, Seraphine F., 2021. "Pandemic backsliding: Violations of democratic standards during Covid-19," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    3. Aksoy, Cevat Giray & Eichengreen, Barry & Saka, Orkun, 2020. "The Political Scar of Epidemics," SocArXiv p25nh, Center for Open Science.
    4. Romano, Alessandro & Sotis, Chiara & Dominioni, Goran & Guidi, Sebastián, 2020. "The scale of COVID-19 graphs affects understanding, attitudes, and policy preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106217, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    6. Jelnov, Artyom & Jelnov, Pavel, 2022. "Vaccination policy and trust," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Bruno S. Frey, 1997. "Not Just for the Money," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1183.
    8. Jay J. Van Bavel & Katherine Baicker & Paulo S. Boggio & Valerio Capraro & Aleksandra Cichocka & Mina Cikara & Molly J. Crockett & Alia J. Crum & Karen M. Douglas & James N. Druckman & John Drury & Oe, 2020. "Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(5), pages 460-471, May.
    9. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    10. Lewkowicz, Jacek & Woźniak, Michał & Wrzesiński, Michał, 2022. "COVID-19 and erosion of democracy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    11. Bargain, Olivier & Aminjonov, Ulugbek, 2020. "Trust and compliance to public health policies in times of COVID-19," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    12. Glenn W. Harrison & Andre Hofmeyr & Harold Kincaid & Brian Monroe & Don Ross & Mark Schneider & J. Todd Swarthout, 2022. "Subjective beliefs and economic preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 795-823, June.
    13. Kreps, David M, 1997. "Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 359-364, May.
    14. Currie, John Martin & Murphy, John A & Schmitz, Andrew, 1971. "The Concept of Economic Surplus and its Use in Economic Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 81(324), pages 741-799, December.
    15. Jason Shachat & Matthew J. Walker & Lijia Wei, 2021. "The Impact of an Epidemic: Experimental Evidence on Preference Stability from Wuhan," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 111, pages 302-306, May.
    16. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2022. "On the stability of risk and time preferences amid the COVID-19 pandemic," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 759-794, June.
    17. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(3), pages 489-520.
    18. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2021. "Economic preferences and compliance in the social stress test of the COVID-19 crisis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    19. Gutiérrez-Romero, Roxana, 2022. "Conflicts increased in Africa shortly after COVID-19 lockdowns, but welfare assistance reduced fatalities," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    20. J. Scott Long & Sarah A. Mustillo, 2021. "Using Predictions and Marginal Effects to Compare Groups in Regression Models for Binary Outcomes," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(3), pages 1284-1320, August.
    21. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    22. Alessandro Romano & Chiara Sotis & Goran Dominioni & Sebastián Guidi, 2020. "The scale of COVID‐19 graphs affects understanding, attitudes, and policy preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1482-1494, November.
    23. Yoshie Matsumoto & Toshio Yamagishi & Yang Li & Toko Kiyonari, 2016. "Prosocial Behavior Increases with Age across Five Economic Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, July.
    24. repec:zbw:bofitp:2020_014 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. McPhedran, Robert & Toombs, Ben, 2021. "Efficacy or delivery? An online Discrete Choice Experiment to explore preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in the UK," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    26. Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard & Gillian Currie, 2012. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 41, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    27. Aucejo, Esteban M. & French, Jacob & Ugalde Araya, Maria Paola & Zafar, Basit, 2020. "The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    28. Nivette, Amy & Ribeaud, Denis & Murray, Aja & Steinhoff, Annekatrin & Bechtiger, Laura & Hepp, Urs & Shanahan, Lilly & Eisner, Manuel, 2021. "Non-compliance with COVID-19-related public health measures among young adults in Switzerland: Insights from a longitudinal cohort study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    29. J. R. Hicks, 1941. "The Rehabilitation of Consumers' Surplus," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 8(2), pages 108-116.
    30. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    31. Nina Haug & Lukas Geyrhofer & Alessandro Londei & Elma Dervic & Amélie Desvars-Larrive & Vittorio Loreto & Beate Pinior & Stefan Thurner & Peter Klimek, 2020. "Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(12), pages 1303-1312, December.
    32. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Htay-Wah Saw & Dana P. Goldman, 2020. "Political polarization in US residents’ COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 177-194, October.
    33. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    34. Anna Wnuk & Tomasz Oleksy & Dominika Maison, 2020. "The acceptance of Covid-19 tracking technologies: The role of perceived threat, lack of control, and ideological beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.
    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. Zexuan Wang & Ismaël Rafaï & Marc Willinger, 2023. "Does age affect the relation between risk and time preferences? Evidence from a representative sample," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 90(2), pages 341-368, October.
    2. Oyenubi, Adeola & Kollamparambil, Umakrishnan, 2023. "Does noncompliance with COVID-19 regulations impact the depressive symptoms of others?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Emily Lancsar & Elisabeth Huynh & Joffre Swait & Robert Breunig & Craig Mitton & Martyn Kirk & Cam Donaldson, 2023. "Preparing for future pandemics: A multi‐national comparison of health and economic trade‐offs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(7), pages 1434-1452, July.
    4. Conti, G.; & Giustinelli, P.;, 2022. "For Better or Worse? Subjective Expectations and Cost-Benefit Trade-Offs in Health Behavior: An Application to Lockdown Compliance in the United Kingdom," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 22/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    5. Gabriella Conti & Pamela Giustinelli, 2023. "For better or worse? Subjective expectations and cost-benefit trade-offs in health behavior," IFS Working Papers W23/19, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Julien Bergeot & Florence Jusot, 2024. "Risk, time preferences, trustworthiness and COVID-19 preventive behavior: evidence from France," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 91-101, February.

    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. Phu Nguyen Van & Thierry Blayac & Dimitri Dubois & Sebastien Duchene & Marc Willinger & Bruno Ventelou, 2021. "Designing acceptable anti-COVID-19 policies by taking into account individuals’ preferences: evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," EconomiX Working Papers 2021-33, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    2. Paul Bokern & Jona Linde & Arno Riedl & Peter Werner, 2023. "The Robustness of Preferences during a Crisis: The Case of Covid-19," CESifo Working Paper Series 10595, CESifo.
    3. Grimalda, Gianluca & Murtin, Fabrice & Pipke, David & Putterman, Louis & Sutter, Matthias, 2023. "The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    4. McCausland, David & Pouliakas, Konstantinos & Theodossiou, Ioannis, 2005. "Some are Punished and Some are Rewarded: A Study of the Impact of Performance Pay on Job Satisfaction," MPRA Paper 14243, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Dirk Sliwka, 2007. "Trust as a Signal of a Social Norm and the Hidden Costs of Incentive Schemes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 999-1012, June.
    6. Borau, Sylvie & Couprie, Hélène & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2022. "The prosociality of married people: Evidence from a large multinational sample," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    8. Joan Esteban & Laurence Kranich, 2003. "The Social Contracts with Endogenous Sentiments," Working Papers 71, Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    10. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    11. Kirsten Bregn, 2013. "Detrimental Effects of Performance-Related Pay in the Public Sector? On the Need for a Broader Theoretical Perspective," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 21-35, March.
    12. Natalie Gold, 2019. "The limits of commodification arguments: Framing, motivation crowding, and shared valuations," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 165-192, May.
    13. Philippe Batifoulier & Maryse Gadreau & Yves Arrighi & Yann Videau & Bruno Ventelou, 2009. "Disentangling extrinsic and intrinsic motivations: the case of French GPs dealing with prevention," EconomiX Working Papers 2009-15, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    14. Sicsic, Jonathan & Le Vaillant, Marc & Franc, Carine, 2012. "Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in primary care: An explanatory study among French general practitioners," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 140-148.
    15. Qi Guo & Palizhati Muhetaer & Ping Hu, 2023. "Cultural worldviews and support for governmental management of COVID-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    17. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    18. Brad R. Humphreys & Gary A. Wagner & John C. Whitehead & Pamela Wicker, 2023. "Willingness to pay for policies to reduce health risks from COVID‐19: Evidence from U.S. professional sports," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 218-231, January.
    19. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Junichiro Ishida, 2011. "Autonomy and Motivation: A Dual-Self Perspective," ISER Discussion Paper 0803, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Policy design; Discrete choice experiment; Individual preferences; Acceptability;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-03866196. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.