IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwppe/0504001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Property Consciousness And The Difference Between Wtp And Wta

Author

Listed:
  • Rahul Shastri

    (National Akademi of Development)

Abstract

It is well known in Environmental Economics that payment offered on the Willingness to Pay (WTP) principle is much smaller than the compensation demanded on the Willingness to Accept (WTA) principle. Payment under WTP goes into the environment and is communally enjoyed, whereas compensation under WTA goes into one’s bank account. Public goods/benefits are valued less than private goods/benefits, due to technical reasons, as well as ‘pure property consciousness’. This explains why WTP is much less than WTA. It is suggested here that the ratio of WTP to WTA can be taken as an index of socialisation of property consciousness. A value of zero would indicate complete individualism, while a value of 1 would indicate an indifference between public and private forms of enjoyment of environmental benefits. It is interesting to note that this ratio is generally less than ½, (95% confidence interval: 0.8 £ q £ 0.38). The measure has a wide range of application. It can be derived from the difference in valuation of any quasi public good that can also be privately supplied and enjoyed. And its measurement may throw light on the failures and successes of co- operative/public/collective property based experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Rahul Shastri, 2005. "Property Consciousness And The Difference Between Wtp And Wta," Public Economics 0504001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwppe:0504001
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/pe/papers/0504/0504001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Willingness to Pay; Willingness to Accept; Property consciousness; Socialisation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching
    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics

    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:wpa:wuwppe:0504001. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.