IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v20y2015i03p407-423_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does payment type affect willingness-to-pay? Valuing new seed varieties in India

Author

Listed:
  • Hossack, Fiona
  • An, Henry

Abstract

Cash is often used in economic experiments as an incentive to encourage realistic decision making or to compensate participants for their time. However, in many less developed countries, remunerating participants with cash can upset existing relationships with local institutions. In cases where the use of cash is not feasible, an alternative type of payment is required. Using a framed field experiment in Odisha, India (formerly Orissa), we explore an alternative payment method, in-kind, where typical household items are used in place of cash. We compare the differences in the valuation of yield stabilizing seed traits between in-kind and cash. Our results suggest that farmers are willing to pay less for seeds when they are paid cash than when they are paid in-kind. Bids are higher by 1.18 Indian Rupees when farmers are paid in-kind, corresponding to about a 7 per cent higher valuation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hossack, Fiona & An, Henry, 2015. "Does payment type affect willingness-to-pay? Valuing new seed varieties in India," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 407-423, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:20:y:2015:i:03:p:407-423_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X14000503/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Randrianarison, Henintsoa & Ramiaramanana, Jeannot & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "When to Pay? Adjusting the Timing of Payments in PES Design to the Needs of Poor Land-users," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 168-177.

    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:cup:endeec:v:20:y:2015:i:03:p:407-423_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    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.