IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint

Author Info

  • Smith, Richard D.
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    No abstract is available for this item.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-6296(04)00103-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 24 (2005)
    Issue (Month): 3 (May)
    Pages: 515-529

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:24:y:2005:i:3:p:515-529
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560

    Keywords:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Robert Wright, 2003. "Estimating the monetary value of health care: lessons from environmental economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 3-16.
    2. Shiell, Alan & Gold, Lisa, 2002. "Contingent valuation in health care and the persistence of embedding effects without the warm glow," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 251-262, April.
    3. David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme & Emma Frew, 2004. "Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 183-190.
    4. Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 1999. "Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 33-62, April.
    5. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    7. Smith, V. Kerry & Osborne, Laura L., 1996. "Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 287-301, November.
    8. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    9. Boyle Kevin J. & Desvousges William H. & Johnson F. Reed & Dunford Richard W. & Hudson Sara P., 1994. "An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 64-83, July.
    10. Diamond, P., 1993. "Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys," Working papers 93-1, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    11. Richard D. Smith, 2001. "The relative sensitivity of willingness-to-pay and time-trade-off to changes in health status: an empirical investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(6), pages 487-497.
    12. Torrance, George W., 1986. "Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal : A review," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, March.
    13. Flores, Nicholas E. & Carson, Richard T., 1997. "The Relationship between the Income Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 287-295, July.
    14. Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998. "Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326.
    15. Rollins, Kimberly & Lyke, Audrey, 1998. "The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 324-344, November.
    16. Madden, Paul, 1991. "A Generalization of Hicksian q Substitutes and Complements with Application to Demand Rationing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(5), pages 1497-508, September.
    17. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    as in new window


    Cited by:

    1. Hildegard Garming & Hermann Waibel, 2009. "Pesticides and farmer health in Nicaragua: a willingness-to-pay approach to evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(2), pages 125-133, May.
    2. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    3. Nathalie Havet & Magali Morelle & Alexis Penot & Raphaël Remonnay, 2012. "The information content of the WTP-WTA gap : An empirical analysis among severely ill patients," Working Papers halshs-00697762, HAL.
    4. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "Use, option and externality values: are contingent valuation studies in health care mis-specified?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 861-869.
    5. Judith Covey & Richard D. Smith, 2006. "How common is the 'prominence effect'? Additional evidence to Whynes et al ," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 205-210.
    6. Liu, Jin-Tan & Tsou, Meng-Wen & Hammitt, James K., 2009. "Willingness to pay for weight-control treatment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 211-218, July.
    7. Laura J. Damschroder & Peter A. Ubel & Jason Riis & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "An alternative approach for eliciting willingness-to-pay: A randomized Internet trial," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 96-106, April.
    8. Rikke Søgaard & Jes Lindholt & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2012. "Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 397-405, November.
    9. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The relationship between reliability and size of willingness‐to‐pay values: a qualitative insight," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 211-216, 02.
    10. Baker, Rachel & Robinson, Angela & Smith, Richard, 2008. "How do respondents explain WTP responses? A review of the qualitative evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1427-1442, August.
    11. Waibel, Hermann & Garming, Hildegard, 2007. "Pesticides And Farmer Health In Nicaragua: A Willingness To Pay Approach," Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Göttingen 2007 7, Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics.
    12. Garming, Hildegard & Waibel, Hermann, 2006. "Willingness To Pay To Avoid Health Risks From Pesticides, A Case Study From Nicaragua," 46th Annual Conference, Giessen, Germany, October 4-6, 2006 14968, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    13. Bobinac, Ana & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "GET MORE, PAY MORE? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 158-168.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Access and download statistics

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhecon:v:24:y:2005:i:3:p:515-529. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.