IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/stf/reljnl/v1y2026iid4.html

Preference Elicitation Methods and Equivalent Income: An Overview

Author

Listed:
  • Shaun Da Costa

  • Marc Fleurbaey

  • Koen Decancq

  • Erik Schokkaert

Abstract

The equivalent income is a preference-based, interpersonally comparable measure of well-being. Although its theoretical foundations are well established, empirical applications remain limited, primarily due to the detailed data requirements on individuals' preferences across various well-being dimensions. This paper reviews the literature on preference elicitation methods with a focus on estimating equivalent income. We examine several survey-based methods, including contingent valuation, multiattribute choice or rating experiments, and life satisfaction regressions. The review highlights the advantages and limitations of each method, emphasizing the considerable scope for methodological improvements and innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaun Da Costa & Marc Fleurbaey & Koen Decancq & Erik Schokkaert, 2026. "Preference Elicitation Methods and Equivalent Income: An Overview," Reviews of Economic Literature, Stanford University Press, vol. 1.
    • Handle: RePEc:stf:reljnl:v:1:y:2026:i::id:4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rel.journals.sup.org/index.php/rel/article/view/4/15
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:stf:reljnl:v:1:y:2026:i::id:4. 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: Maria Fitzgerald (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rel.journals.sup.org/index.php/rel/ .

    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.