IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v86y2004i1p213-221.html

Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value

Author

Listed:
  • Richard A. Hofler
  • John A. List

Abstract

The lack of robust evidence showing that hypothetical behavior directly maps into real actions remains a major concern for proponents of stated preference nonmarket valuation techniques. This article explores a new statistical approach to link actual and hypothetical statements. Using willingness-to-pay field data on individual bids from sealed-bid auctions for a $350 baseball card, our results are quite promising. Estimating a stochastic frontier regression model that makes use of data that any contingent valuation survey would obtain, we derive a bid function that is not statistically different from the bid function obtained from subjects in an actual auction. If other data can be calibrated similarly, this method holds significant promise since an appropriate calibration scheme, ex ante or ex post, can be invaluable to the policy maker that desires more accurate estimates of use and nonuse values for nonmarket goods and services. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard A. Hofler & John A. List, 2004. "Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 213-221.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:86:y:2004:i:1:p:213-221
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00573.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. John List, 2025. "Valuing Non-Marketed Goods and Services Using a List Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00809, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Anabela Botelho & Lígia Costa Pinto & Patricia Sousa, 2013. "Valuing wind farms’ environmental impacts by geographical distance: A contingent valuation study in Portugal," NIMA Working Papers 52, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    3. Sanchari Choudhury, 2021. "Regulation and Corruption: Evidence from the United States," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(4), pages 897-934, August.
    4. Jason Shogren, 2006. "Valuation in the Lab," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 163-172, May.
    5. G. Concu, 2004. "A choice modelling approach to investigate biases in individual and aggregated benefit estimates due to omission of distance," Working Paper CRENoS 200412, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    6. Clot, Sophie & Andriamahefazafy, Fano & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Méral, Philippe, 2015. "Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Services (CRES) and efficient design of contracts in developing countries. Behavioral insights from a natural field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 85-96.
    7. Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P. & Fannin, James Matthew & Hall, Larry M. & Caffey, Rex H., 2007. "Calibrating Online Survey Sample for Economic Impact Analysis," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34997, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Norwood, F. Bailey, 2005. "Can Calibration Reconcile Stated and Observed Preferences?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 237-248, April.
    9. Svensson, Mikael, 2006. "The Value of a Statistical Life in Sweden Estimates from Two Studies using the "Certainty Approach" Calibration," Working Papers 2006:6, Örebro University, School of Business, revised 12 May 2009.
    10. Ash, Michael & Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Hypothetical Bias In Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Working Paper Series 14506, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    11. Haddak, Mohamed Mouloud & Lefèvre, Marie & Havet, Nathalie, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for road safety improvement," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-10.
    12. 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.
    13. Zhang, Rui & Shonkwiler, J. Scott, "undated". "Bias Correction of Welfare measures in Non-Market Valuation: Comparison of the Delta Method, Jackknife and Bootstrap," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258099, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Cong Feng & Scott Fay & K. Sivakumar, 2016. "Overbidding in electronic auctions: factors influencing the propensity to overbid and the magnitude of overbidding," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 241-260, March.
    15. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    16. Bolliger, Conradin & Reviron, Sophie, 2008. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Swiss Chicken Meat: An In-store Survey to Link Stated and Revealed Buying Behaviour," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44155, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Whittington, Dale & Sur, Dipika & Cook, Joseph & Chatterjee, Susmita & Maskery, Brian & Lahiri, Malay & Poulos, Christine & Boral, Srabani & Nyamete, Andrew & Deen, Jacqueline & Ochiai, Leon & Bhattac, 2009. "Rethinking Cholera and Typhoid Vaccination Policies for the Poor: Private Demand in Kolkata, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 399-409, February.
    18. Millimet, Daniel L. & Parmeter, Christopher F., 2022. "Accounting for Skewed or One-Sided Measurement Error in the Dependent Variable," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 66-88, January.
    19. Aiken Deborah Vaughn & Zamula William W., 2009. "Valuation of Quality of Life Losses Associated with Nonfatal Injury: Insights from Jury Verdict Data," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 293-310, May.
    20. Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Parmeter, Christopher F. & Tsionas, Efthymios G., 2012. "Bayesian estimation approaches to first-price auctions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 168(1), pages 47-59.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:86:y:2004:i:1:p:213-221. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.