IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-26-00190.html

On the treatment of protest responses induced by perceived corruption in stated preferences studies

Author

Listed:
  • William F. Vásquez

    (Fairfield University)

  • Carlos E. de Rezende

    (Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense)

Abstract

Despite the prevalence of protest responses induced by perceived corruption in stated preferences surveys, consensus on how to treat those responses remains elusive. This study proposes a counterfactual approach to mitigate corruption-induced biases in willingness-to-pay estimates. Specifically, we present a debiasing prompt that asks protesters to reconsider their choice within a hypothetical context of institutional transparency. Using these modified protest responses, we provide willingness-to-pay estimates relatively free from protest bias. Applying this method to a contingent valuation study of cultural property in Brazil, we find a median willingness-to-pay 80% higher than the baseline. This suggests that standard valuation methods may undervalue public goods in contexts of high perceived corruption.

Suggested Citation

  • William F. Vásquez & Carlos E. de Rezende, 2026. "On the treatment of protest responses induced by perceived corruption in stated preferences studies," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 46(2), pages 590-596.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-26-00190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2026/Volume46/EB-26-V46-I2-P49.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen Blumenschein & Glenn C. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    2. Mandy Ryan & Emmanouil Mentzakis & Suthi Jareinpituk & John Cairns, 2017. "External Validity of Contingent Valuation: Comparing Hypothetical and Actual Payments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(11), pages 1467-1473, November.
    3. Maria Cunha-e-Sá & Lívia Madureira & Luis Nunes & Vladimir Otrachshenko, 2012. "Protesting and Justifying: A Latent Class Model for Contingent Valuation with Attitudinal Data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(4), pages 531-548, August.
    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. Trudeau, Jennifer M. & Alicea-Planas, Jessica & Vásquez, William F., 2020. "The value of COVID-19 tests in Latin America," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. William F. Vásquez & Jennifer M. Trudeau, 2022. "Willingness to give amid pandemics: a contingent valuation of anticipated nongovernmental immunization programs," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 53-68, March.
    3. William F. Vásquez & Jennifer M. Trudeau & Jessica Alicea‐Planas, 2021. "Immediate and informative feedback during a pandemic: Using stated preference analysis to predict vaccine uptake rates," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3123-3137, December.
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Tyurina, Elena & Nagapetyan, Artur, 2022. "The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Frondel Manuel & Kutzschbauch Ole & Sommer Stephan & Traub Stefan, 2017. "Die Gerechtigkeitslücke in der Verteilung der Kosten der Energiewende auf die privaten Haushalte," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 18(4), pages 335-347, November.
    7. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    8. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    9. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Coomes, Paul A. & Jepsen, Christopher & Koford, Brandon C. & Troske, Kenneth R., 2014. "Estimating the social value of higher education: willingness to pay for community and technical colleges," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 3-41, January.
    10. Datta, Nikhil, 2019. "Willing to pay for security: a discrete choice experiment to analyse labour supply preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103390, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Bayham, Jude & Muñoz-García, Félix & Espínola-Arredondo, Ana, 2019. "International coordination of environmental policies: is it always worth the effort?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 294-316, June.
    12. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Erratum to: Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 457-457, November.
    13. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    14. Wang, Haoluan & Swallow, Brent M., "undated". "Linking Agricultural Land Conservation and Provision of Ecosystem Services: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258537, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. G�nther Fink & Margaret McConnell & Sebastian Vollmer, 2014. "Testing for heterogeneous treatment effects in experimental data: false discovery risks and correction procedures," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 44-57, January.
    16. Laia Soler & Nicolas Borzykowski, 2021. "The costs of celiac disease: a contingent valuation in Switzerland," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1487-1505, December.
    17. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    18. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    19. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    20. Rashedi, Zohreh & Mahmoud, Mohamed & Hasnine, Sami & Habib, Khandker Nurul, 2017. "On the factors affecting the choice of regional transit for commuting in Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area: Application of an advanced RP-SP choice model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-13.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-26-00190. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.