IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lsu/lsuwpp/2008-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preference-Theoretic Weak Complementarity: Getting More with Less

Author

Listed:
  • David G. Brown

Abstract

A preference-theoretic characterization of weak complementarity is provided based on an explicit representation of revealed preference. Weak complementarity is defined in terms of the observable property of nonessentiality and the unobservable property of no existence value. Preference-theoretic characterizations of these properties facilitate a precision and intuition that is not generally available within the existing calculus-based literature. An exact welfare measure is specified that does not require a continuous nonmarket good or monotonic preference on the nonmarket good, and which can be easily generalized to accommodate infinite choke prices. It is shown that no existence value can be rejected by revealed preference, contradicting a widely stated assertion within the literature. Even though no existence value is unobservable, it does require an observable condition that is nontrivial with three or more market goods.

Suggested Citation

  • David G. Brown, 2008. "Preference-Theoretic Weak Complementarity: Getting More with Less," Departmental Working Papers 2008-09, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:lsu:lsuwpp:2008-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.lsu.edu/business/economics/files/workingpapers/pap08_09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David S. Bullock & Nicholas Minot, 2006. "On Measuring the Value of a Nonmarket Good Using Market Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 961-973.
    2. Bockstael, N E & McConnell, K E, 1993. "Public Goods as Characteristics of Non-market Commodities," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(420), pages 1244-1257, September.
    3. Larson, Douglas M., 1991. "Recovering weakly complementary preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 97-108, September.
    4. Ebert, Udo, 2001. "A general approach to the evaluation of nonmarket goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 373-388, October.
    5. Udo Ebert, 1998. "Evaluation of Nonmarket Goods: Recovering Unconditional Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 241-254.
    6. V. Kerry Smith & H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2004. "A Diagrammatic Exposition of Weak Complementarity and the Willig Condition," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 455-466.
    7. von Haefen, Roger H., 2007. "Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 15-31, July.
    8. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2005. "Weak complementarity, path independence, and the intuition of the Willig condition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 103-115, January.
    9. Bradford, David F. & Hildebrandt, Gregory G., 1977. "Observable preferences for public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 111-131, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. David G. Brown, 2009. "A Revealed Preference Feasibility Condition for Weak Complementarity," Departmental Working Papers 2009-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    2. V. Smith & Mary Evans & H. Banzhaf & Christine Poulos, 2010. "Can Weak Substitution be Rehabilitated?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 203-221, February.
    3. Ebert, Udo, 2007. "Revealed preference and household production," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 276-289, March.
    4. von Haefen, Roger H., 2007. "Empirical strategies for incorporating weak complementarity into consumer demand models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 15-31, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Palmquist, Raymond B., 2005. "Weak complementarity, path independence, and the intuition of the Willig condition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 103-115, January.
    7. David G. Brown, 2008. "Falsifying the �Goodness� of Nonmarket Goods with Revealed Preference," Departmental Working Papers 2008-08, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    8. Smith, V. Kerry & Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2007. "Quality adjusted price indexes and the Willig condition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 43-48, January.
    9. Laura Blow & Richard Blundell, 2018. "A Nonparametric Revealed Preference Approach to Measuring the Value of Environmental Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 503-527, March.
    10. Daniel H. Karney & Khyati Malik, 2024. "Public Good Provision and Compensating Variation," Papers 2401.15493, arXiv.org.
    11. Neill, Jon R., 2022. "Using consumer’s surplus to bound willingness to pay for non-market goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    12. Kovacs, Kent F. & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Recreation at open space and residential development patterns," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 271502, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Udo Ebert, 2010. "On the Measurement of Welfare for Market and Nonmarket Goods: A Numerical Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 102-109.
    14. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
    15. Ebert, Udo, 2001. "A general approach to the evaluation of nonmarket goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 373-388, October.
    16. Nicolai V. Kuminoff & V. Kerry Smith & Christopher Timmins, 2010. "The New Economics of Equilibrium Sorting and its Transformational Role for Policy Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 16349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2004. "What's the use? welfare estimates from revealed preference models when weak complementarity does not hold," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 55-70, January.
    18. V. Smith & Subhrendu Pattanayak, 2002. "Is Meta-Analysis a Noah's Ark for Non-Market Valuation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 271-296, June.
    19. Bockstael, Nancy E. & Freeman III, A. Myrick, 2006. "Welfare Theory and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 12, pages 517-570, Elsevier.
    20. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2021. "Difference-in-Differences Hedonics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(8), pages 2385-2414.

    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:lsu:lsuwpp:2008-09. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/delsuus.html .

    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.