IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v189y2020ics0165176520300434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market-based policies, public opinion, and information

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobsen, Grant D.

Abstract

This paper experimentally examines the extent to which individuals support a market-based approach to public policy and how support levels respond to being presented with policy analysis indicating market-based policies are more cost-effective. The findings are as follows. First, absent being presented with any policy analysis, individuals tend to oppose a market-based approach to policy. Second, providing individuals with policy analysis, in which specific types of market-based policies are described as more cost-effective than non-market-based alternatives, increases general support for a market-based approach to policy. Third, the increase in support for a market-based approach to policy is larger when a nonpartisan research organization produces the analysis than a partisan organization.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobsen, Grant D., 2020. "Market-based policies, public opinion, and information," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:189:y:2020:i:c:s0165176520300434
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176520300434
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109018?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano DellaVigna & Matthew Gentzkow, 2010. "Persuasion: Empirical Evidence," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 643-669, September.
    2. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    3. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Leiserowitz, Anthony A., 2013. "Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 617-625.
    4. Ofra Amir & David G Rand & Ya'akov Kobi Gal, 2012. "Economic Games on the Internet: The Effect of $1 Stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-4, February.
    5. Grant D. Jacobsen, 2019. "How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 315-342, September.
    6. Matthew E. Kahn, 2002. "Demographic change and the demand for environmental regulation," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 45-62.
    7. Bryan Caplan, 2007. "Introduction to The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies," Introductory Chapters, in: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, Princeton University Press.
    8. Whaples Robert, 2006. "Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 3(9), pages 1-6, November.
    9. Robert Whaples, 2009. "The Policy Views of American Economic Association Members: The Results of a New Survey," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 6(3), pages 337-348, September.
    10. Costa, Dora L. & Kahn, Matthew E., 2013. "Do liberal home owners consume less electricity? A test of the voluntary restraint hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 210-212.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Thiago Fonseca Morello & Luís Fernando Silva e Silva, 2023. "Garnering support for Pigouvian taxation with tax return: a lab experiment," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 25(2), pages 115-142, April.
    2. Ximing Zhang & Xiao Li & Hui Wang, 2023. "Why Do Farmers Support Stable Land Ownership? Marketization with Chinese Characteristics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Thiago Morello, 2023. "An Agri-environmental Scheme for Reducing Inputs Subjected to Accidental Spillage: An Application to Agricultural Burnings by Smallholders," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(2), pages 383-408, February.

    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. Grant D. Jacobsen, 2019. "How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 315-342, September.
    2. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    3. Natalia Mishagina & Claude Montmarquette, 2018. "The Demand for Economic Policies, Beliefs, and Willingness-to-Pay: The Case of the Minimum Wage Policy in Quebec," CIRANO Project Reports 2018rp-14, CIRANO.
    4. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    6. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.
    7. Alexsandros Cavgias & Raphael Corbi, Luis Meloni, Lucas M. Novaes, 2019. "EDITED DEMOCRACY: Media Manipulation and the News Coverage of Presidential Debates," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2019_17, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    8. Valerio Capraro & David G. Rand, 2018. "Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 99-111, January.
    9. Jonathan de Quidt, 2018. "Your Loss Is My Gain: A Recruitment Experiment with Framed Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 522-559.
    10. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Simon, Lisa & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "Can Online Surveys Represent the Entire Population?," IZA Discussion Papers 11799, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Aurelie Ouss & Alexander Peysakhovich, 2015. "When Punishment Doesn't Pay: "Cold Glow" and Decisions to Punish," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(3).
    12. Thomas Buser & Anna Dreber, 2016. "The Flipside of Comparative Payment Schemes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(9), pages 2626-2638, September.
    13. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.
    14. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2022. "Insurance demand experiments: Comparing crowdworking to the lab," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1077-1107, December.
    15. Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes, 2019. "Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2329-2347, October.
    16. Rafael Di Tella & Dani Rodrik, 2020. "Labour Market Shocks and the Demand for Trade Protection: Evidence from Online Surveys," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(628), pages 1008-1030.
    17. Andrew G. Meyer, 2022. "Do economic conditions affect climate change beliefs and support for climate action? Evidence from the US in the wake of the Great Recession," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 64-86, January.
    18. de Quidt, Jonathan, 2014. "Your loss is my gain: a recruitment experiment with framed incentives," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58208, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Alexander Peysakhovich & David G. Rand, 2016. "Habits of Virtue: Creating Norms of Cooperation and Defection in the Laboratory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 631-647, March.
    20. Dan Šťastný, 2011. "Checking the Czechs: Consensus and Dissention Among Czech Economists," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2011(4), pages 366-380.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Market-based policies; Public opinion; Policy analysis; Information;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • 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:eee:ecolet:v:189:y:2020:i:c:s0165176520300434. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.