IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v88y2021i6p2886-2934..html

Default Effects And Follow-On Behaviour: Evidence From An Electricity Pricing Program
[The Impact of Presumed Consent Legislation on Cadaveric Oorgan Donation: A Cross-country Study”]

Author

Listed:
  • Meredith Fowlie
  • Catherine Wolfram
  • Patrick Baylis
  • C Anna Spurlock
  • Annika Todd-Blick
  • Peter Cappers

Abstract

We study default effects in the context of a residential electricity-pricing program. In the large-scale randomized controlled trial we analyse, one treatment group was given the option to opt-in to time-varying pricing while another was defaulted into the program but allowed to opt-out. We provide dramatic evidence of a default effect on program participation, consistent with previous research. A novel feature of our study is that we also observe how the default manipulation impacts customers’ subsequent electricity consumption. Passive consumers who did not opt-out but would not have opted in—comprising more than 70 of the sample—nonetheless reduce consumption in response to higher prices. Observing of this follow-on behaviour enables us to assess competing explanations for the default effect. We draw conclusions about the likely welfare effects of defaulting customers onto time-varying pricing.

Suggested Citation

  • Meredith Fowlie & Catherine Wolfram & Patrick Baylis & C Anna Spurlock & Annika Todd-Blick & Peter Cappers, 2021. "Default Effects And Follow-On Behaviour: Evidence From An Electricity Pricing Program [The Impact of Presumed Consent Legislation on Cadaveric Oorgan Donation: A Cross-country Study”]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(6), pages 2886-2934.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:88:y:2021:i:6:p:2886-2934.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/restud/rdab018
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:restud:v:88:y:2021:i:6:p:2886-2934.. 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://academic.oup.com/restud .

    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.