IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v84y2008i4p701-707.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Public Goods Provision: Implications of Endogenizing the Labor/Leisure Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas E. Flores
  • Philip E. Graves

Abstract

Conventional analysis of public goods provision aggregates individual willingness to pay while treating income as exogenous, ignoring the fact that we generate income to allow us to purchase utility-generating goods. We explore the implications of endogenizing the labor/leisure decision by explicitly considering leisure demand in a model of public goods provision. We consider benefit analysis of public goods provision and find that increments of the public good will generally be under-valued using conventional analysis while decrements to the public good (rare in public good settings) will be overvalued.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas E. Flores & Philip E. Graves, 2008. "Optimal Public Goods Provision: Implications of Endogenizing the Labor/Leisure Choice," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 701-707.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:4:p:701-707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/84/4/701
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. R. Hicks, 1943. "The Four Consumer's Surpluses," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 11(1), pages 31-41.
    2. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    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. Delis, Manthos D. & Iosifidi, Maria, 2020. "Environmentally aware households," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 263-279.
    2. Graves Philip E, 2009. "A Note on the Valuation of Collective Goods: Overlooked Input Market Free Riding for Non-Individually Incrementable Goods," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Graves, Philip E., 2012. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of Environmental Projects: A Plethora of Biases Understating Net Benefits," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 1-25, August.
    4. Philip E. Graves, 2011. "Appropriate Fiscal Policy over the Business Cycle: Proper Stimulus Policies Can Work," The IUP Journal of Governance and Public Policy, IUP Publications, vol. 0(2), pages 26-32, June.
    5. Philip E. Graves, 2010. "Benefit-Cost Analysis of Environmental Projects: A Plethora of Systematic Biases," CESifo Working Paper Series 3144, CESifo.
    6. Graves, Philip E., 2017. "Implications of global warming: Two eras," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7, pages 9-14.
    7. Graves, Philip E., 2017. "Global Climate Policy Will Have Net Benefits Larger Than Anyone Thinks (and Welfare Gains, Strangely, Are Likely To Be Much Larger Yet)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 73-76.

    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. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Christian Bontemps & Thierry Magnac & Eric Maurin, 2012. "Set Identified Linear Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 1129-1155, May.
    3. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    4. Lim, Kyoung-Min & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "Estimating the economic value of residential electricity use in the Republic of Korea using contingent valuation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 601-606.
    5. Sinden, Jack A., 1978. "Estimation Of Consumer'S Surplus Values For Land Policies," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 22(2-3), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Lucinio Júdez & de Rosario Andrés & Carlos Pérez Hugalde & Elvira Urzainqui & Miguel Ibáñez, 1998. "Évaluation contingente de l’usage récréatif d’une réserve naturelle humide," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 48, pages 37-60.
    7. Riccardo Scarpa, 2000. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland: Comment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 122-128, January.
    8. Carson, Richard T. & Hanemann, W. Michael & Kopp, Raymond J. & Krosnick, Jon A. & Mitchell, Robert C. & Presser, Stanley & Ruud, Paul A. & Smith, V. Kerry & Conaway, Michael & Martin, Kerry, 1996. "Was the NOAA Panel Correct about Contingent Valuation?," Discussion Papers 10503, Resources for the Future.
    9. Lewbel, Arthur & McFadden, Daniel & Linton, Oliver, 2011. "Estimating features of a distribution from binomial data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 170-188, June.
    10. Ahuja, Vinod & McConnell, Kenneth E. & Umali-Deininger, Dina & de Haan, Cornelis, 2003. "Are the Poor Willing to Pay for Livestock Services? Evidence from Rural India," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 58(1), March.
    11. Solomon Hsiang & Paulina Oliva & Reed Walker, 2019. "The Distribution of Environmental Damages," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 83-103.
    12. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    13. An, Mark Y. & Roberto Ayala, 1995. "A Mixture Model of Willingness to Pay Distributions," Working Papers 95-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    14. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244, March.
    15. Racevskis, Laila A. & Lupi, Frank, 2008. "Incentive Compatibility in an Attribute-Based Referendum Model," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6477, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Fernando S. Machado & Rajiv K. Sinha, 2007. "Smoking Cessation: A Model of Planned vs. Actual Behavior for Time-Inconsistent Consumers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 834-850, 11-12.
    17. Natale Arcuri & Manuela De Ruggiero & Francesca Salvo & Raffaele Zinno, 2020. "Automated Valuation Methods through the Cost Approach in a BIM and GIS Integration Framework for Smart City Appraisals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    18. Smith, V. Kerry & van Houtven, George & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., 1999. "Benefit Transfer as Preference Calibration," Discussion Papers 10607, Resources for the Future.
    19. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    20. Bohara, Alok K. & McKee, Michael & Berrens, Robert P. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol L. & Brookshire, David S., 1998. "Effects of Total Cost and Group-Size Information on Willingness to Pay Responses: Open Ended vs. Dichotomous Choice," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 142-163, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:uwp:landec:v:84:y:2008:i:4:p:701-707. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://le.uwpress.org/ .

    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.