IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sajeco/v90y2022i1p3-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to pay for COVID‐19 test and vaccine in South Africa and Ghana: A contingent valuation study

Author

Listed:
  • Rebecca Nana Yaa Ayifah
  • Emmanuel Ayifah

Abstract

Although from a public health perspective, governments are expected to finance the cost of testing and vaccination against the COVID‐19 pandemic, most African countries do not have the resources to do these. Individuals' willingness to pay (WTP) for COVID‐19 testing and vaccination is thus crucial. We employ the Contingent Valuation Method to assess WTP for COVID‐19 testing and vaccine and also investigate factors associated with WTP in South Africa and Ghana. On average, respondents in South Africa are willing to pay US$16.29 for COVID‐19 testing, whereas those in Ghana are willing to pay US$9.69. In terms of the COVID‐19 vaccine, South Africans are willing to pay twice (US$41.83) as high as the amount Ghanaians are willing to pay (US$20.36). The results from the probit and tobit estimations on factors associated with WTP show that WTP for COVID‐19 testing and vaccine are correlated with income, education, employment, gender, having tested for COVID‐19, travel experience, and low satisfaction with the government's COVID‐19 measures. These findings suggest that the private sector can play a crucial role in COVID‐19 testing and the deployment of COVID‐19 vaccines because people are willing to pay. However, there may be a need for subsidisation for the poor.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebecca Nana Yaa Ayifah & Emmanuel Ayifah, 2022. "Willingness to pay for COVID‐19 test and vaccine in South Africa and Ghana: A contingent valuation study," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 90(1), pages 3-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sajeco:v:90:y:2022:i:1:p:3-20
    DOI: 10.1111/saje.12311
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/saje.12311
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/saje.12311?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    2. Dost, Florian & Wilken, Robert, 2012. "Measuring willingness to pay as a range, revisited: When should we care?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 148-166.
    3. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    4. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    5. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    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. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Validity of Willingness to Pay Measures under Preference Uncertainty," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Michael Hanemann & Jon Krosnick & Lisanne Wichgers & Jeffrey Wooldridge & Stephanie Lampron & Daniel Schneider & Eric M. Shaeffer & Trevor Tompson & Penny Visser, 2025. "Ben Franklin’s Whistle, Cost Expectations, and the Choice of Valuation Format," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(5), pages 1375-1406, May.
    3. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    4. Shao, Wei & Lye, Ashley & Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn, 2009. "Different strokes for different folks: A method to accommodate decision -making heterogeneity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 495-501.
    5. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    7. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2011. "The effects of information about health hazards in food on consumers' choice process," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 140-147, May.
    8. Stefano Ficco & Vladimir Karamychev & Peran van Reeven, 2006. "A Theory of Procedurally Rational Choice: Optimization without Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 06-001/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Olivier Chanel & Khaled Makhloufi & Mohammad Abu-Zaineh, 2017. "Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 385-398, June.
    10. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    11. Frank J. van Rijnsoever & Carolina Castaldi, 2008. "Perceived technology clusters and ownership of related technologies: the case of consumer electronics," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-17, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Jun 2008.
    12. Leung, Ming D., 2015. "Failed Searches: How the choice set of job applicants affects an employer’s likelihood of making an offer," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt89r4h7d9, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    13. Woo, JongRoul & Shin, Jungwoo & Kim, Hongbum & Moon, HyungBin, 2022. "Which consumers are willing to pay for smart car healthcare services? A discrete choice experiment approach," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    14. Sebastian Lehmann, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of the BDM: Predictive Validity, Gambling Effects, and Risk Attitude," FEMM Working Papers 150001, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    15. Loibl, Cäzilia & Kraybill, David S. & DeMay, Sara Wackler, 2011. "Accounting for the role of habit in regular saving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 581-592, August.
    16. Kaye-Blake, William & Abell, Walter L. & Zellman, Eva, 2009. "Respondents’ ignoring of attribute information in a choice modelling survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-18.
    17. Jonathan E. Alevy & Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2015. "Field Experiments On The Anchoring Of Economic Valuations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(3), pages 1522-1538, July.
    18. Stijn Osselaer & Suresh Ramanathan & Margaret Campbell & Joel Cohen & Jeannette Dale & Paul Herr & Chris Janiszewski & Arie Kruglanski & Angela Lee & Stephen Read & J. Russo & Nader Tavassoli, 2005. "Choice Based on Goals," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 335-346, December.
    19. Newark, Daniel A., 2014. "Indecision and the construction of self," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 162-174.
    20. Frankfurter, George M. & McGoun, Elton G. & Allen, Douglas E., 2004. "The prescriptive turn in behavioral finance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 449-468, September.

    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:bla:sajeco:v:90:y:2022:i:1:p:3-20. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essaaea.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.