Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Why the Linear Utility Function is a Risky Choice in Discrete-Choice Experiments

Contents:

Author Info

  • Michele Sennhauser

    ()
    (Department of Economics, University of Zurich)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    This article assesses how the form of the utility function in discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) affects estimates of willingness-to-pay (WTP). The utility function is usually assumed to be linear in its attributes. Non-linearities, in the guise of interactions and higher-order terms, are applied only rather ad hoc. This paper sheds some light on this issue by showing that the linear utility function can be a risky choice in DCEs. For this purpose, a DCE conducted in Switzerland to assess preferences for statutory social health insurance is estimated in two ways: first, using a linear utility function; and second, using a non-linear utility function specified according to model specification rules from the econometrics and statistics literature. The results show that not only does the non-linear function outperform the linear specification with regard to goodness-of-fit, but it also generates significantly different WTP. Hence, the functional form of the utility function may have significant impact on estimated WTP. In order to produce unbiased estimates of preferences and to make adequate decisions based on DCEs, the form of the utility function should become more prominent in future experiments.

    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://www.soi.uzh.ch/research/wp/2010/wp1014.pdf
    File Function: first version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich in its series SOI - Working Papers with number 1014.

    as in new window
    Length: 22 pages
    Date of creation: Nov 2009
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:soz:wpaper:1014

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Blümlisalpstrasse 10, CH-8006 Zürich
    Phone: +41-1-634 22 05
    Fax: +41-1-634 49 07
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.soi.uzh.ch/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Discrete-Choice Experiment; Preference Measurement; Health Insurance; Model Specification;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    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. Polk, Andreas & Schmutzler, Armin & Müller, Adrian, 2013. "Lobbying and the Power of Multinational Firms," Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79875, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Eugster, Patrick & Sennhauser, Michèle & Zweifel, Peter, 2010. "Capping risk adjustment?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 499-507, July.
    3. Netzer, Nick & Schmutzler, Armin, 2010. "Rotten Kids with Bad Intentions," CEPR Discussion Papers, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers 7667, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Boes, Stefan & Staub, Kevin & Winkelmann, Rainer, 2010. "Relative status and satisfaction," Economics Letters, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 168-170, December.
    5. Sule Akkoyunlu & Ilja Neustadt & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Why does the amount of income redistribution differ between United States and Europe? The Janus face of Switzerland," SOI - Working Papers, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich 0810, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    6. Ilja Neustadt, 2011. "Do Religious Beliefs Explain Preferences for Income Redistribution? Experimental Evidence," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, CESifo, vol. 57(4), pages 623-652, December.
    7. Donja Darai & Jens Grosser & Nadja Trhal, 2009. "Patents versus Subsidies – A Laboratory Experiment," SOI - Working Papers, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich 0905, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    8. Sandra Hanslin, 2010. "Trade Openness, Gains from Variety and Government Spending," SOI - Working Papers, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich 1004, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    9. Reinhard Madlener & Weiyu Gao & Ilja Neustadt & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Promoting renewable electricity generation in imperfect markets: price vs. quantity policies," SOI - Working Papers, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich 0809, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    10. Peter Egger & Mario Larch & Kevin E. Staub & Rainer Winkelmann, 2010. "The Trade Effects of Endogenous Preferential Trade Agreements," CESifo Working Paper Series 3253, CESifo Group Munich.
    11. Kevin E. Staub, 2009. "Simple tests for exogeneity of a binary explanatory variable in count data regression models," SOI - Working Papers, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich 0904, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    12. Sule Akkoyunlu & Frank R. Lichtenberg & Boriss Siliverstovs & Peter Zweifel, 2009. "Spurious correlation in estimation of the health production function: A note," SOI - Working Papers, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich 0903, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    13. Nick Netzer & Florian Scheuer, 2010. "Competitive screening in insurance markets with endogenous wealth heterogeneity," Economic Theory, Springer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 187-211, August.
    14. Andrew J. Oswald & Rainer Winkelmann, 2008. "Delay and Deservingness after Winning the Lottery," SOI - Working Papers, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich 0815, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    15. Madlener, Reinhard & Neustadt, Ilja, 2010. "Renewable Energy Policy in the Presence of Innovation: Does Government Pre-Commitment Matter?," FCN Working Papers, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN) 4/2010, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN), revised Jun 2010.
    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:soz:wpaper:1014. 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: (Marita Kieser).

    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.