IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v10y2001i2p147-158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Searching for a better willingness to pay elicitation method in rural Nigeria: the binary question with follow‐up method versus the bidding game technique

Author

Listed:
  • Obinna Onwujekwe

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the theoretical validity and predictive validity of the binary with follow‐up questions technique and the bidding game, using hypothetical and actual WTP for insecticide‐treated nets (ITNs) in Nigeria. Methods: Each elicitation method was applied in one of two rural communities in Enugu state, Nigeria. A pre‐tested interviewer‐administered questionnaire was administered to household heads or representatives of households. WTP was elicited in each after presenting the scenario and showing a sample of the ITNs to the respondents. Then, within an interval of 1–2 months, the nets were sold to the respondents to compare hypothetical and actual WTP. Findings: Consistent slightly higher mean and median WTP amounts were elicited from Mbano where the bidding game was used. The WTP technique was able to predict WTP responses correctly in 75% and 85% of cases in Orba and Mbano, respectively. Chi‐square analysis did not show any statistical difference in values from both communities (p>0.05). Conclusion: Though the two techniques yielded similar results, the thrust should be the development of a WTP elicitation method that best mimics the bargaining process in normal market situations in rural Nigeria. Such an indigenous technique will help improve the predictive validity of the contingent valuation method. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Obinna Onwujekwe, 2001. "Searching for a better willingness to pay elicitation method in rural Nigeria: the binary question with follow‐up method versus the bidding game technique," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 147-158, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:2:p:147-158
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.568
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.568
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.568?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lauraine G. Chestnut & L. Robin Keller & William E. Lambert & Robert D. Rowe, 1996. "Measuring Heart Patients' Willingness to Pay for Changes in Angina Symptoms," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(1), pages 65-76, February.
    2. Bernt Kartman & Fredrik Andersson & Magnus Johannesson, 1996. "Willingness to Pay for Reductions in Angina Pectoris Attacks," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(3), pages 248-253, August.
    3. Johannesson, Magnus & Jonsson, Bengt & Borgquist, Lars, 1991. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- results of a Swedish pilot study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 461-473.
    4. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O'Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    5. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
    6. Frykblom, Peter, 1997. "Hypothetical Question Modes and Real Willingness to Pay," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 275-287, November.
    7. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    8. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    9. Vivien Foster & Ian J. Bateman & David Harley, 1998. "Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison," Chapters, in: Melinda Acutt & Pamela Mason (ed.), Environmental Valuation, Economic Policy and Sustainability, chapter 3, pages 35-50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Phillips, Kathryn A. & Homan, Rick K. & Luft, Harold S. & Hiatt, Patricia H. & Olson, Kent R. & Kearney, Thomas E. & Heard, Stuart E., 1997. "Willingness to pay for poison control centers," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 343-357, June.
    11. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    12. Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley & Mona Abdalla, 1997. "Using Willingness To Pay To Value Close Substitutes: Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis Revisited," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(2), pages 145-159, March.
    13. Elise H. Golan & Mordechai Shechter, 1993. "Contingent Valuation of Supplemental Health Care in Israel," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(4), pages 302-310, December.
    14. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    15. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Richard O'Conor, 1997. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay: some experimental results," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 149-151.
    16. Gwendolyn C. Morrison & Marlene Gyldmark, 1992. "Appraising the use of contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(4), pages 233-243, December.
    17. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1996. "Improving Validity Experiments of Contingent Valuation Methods: Results of Efforts to Reduce the Disparity of Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(4), pages 450-461.
    18. Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "Some further experimental results on hypothetical versus real willingness to pay," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(8), pages 535-536.
    19. 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, June.
    20. Bernie O'Brien & Jose Luis Viramontes, 1994. "Willingness to Pay," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 14(3), pages 289-297, August.
    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. Mehmet Kutluay & Roy Brouwer & Richard S. J. Tol, 2019. "Valuing malaria morbidity: results from a global meta-analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 301-321, July.
    2. Kangethe, Anne & Franic, Duska M. & Corso, Phaedra S., 2016. "Comparing the validity of the payment card and structured haggling willingness to pay methods: The case of a diabetes prevention program in rural Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 86-96.
    3. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    4. Galina Williams, 2015. "Households Willingness to Pay for the Emissions Reduction Policy, Queensland, Australia," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    5. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Adams, Katherine P. & Vosti, Stephen A. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Ayifah, Emmanuel, 2011. "Integrating Economic Analysis with a Randomized Controlled Trial: Willingness-to-Pay for a New Maternal Nutrient Supplement," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103793, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. M. Trapero‐Bertran & H. Mistry & J. Shen & J. Fox‐Rushby, 2013. "A Systematic Review And Meta‐Analysis Of Willingness‐To‐Pay Values: The Case Of Malaria Control Interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 428-450, April.
    8. Kevin C. Urama & Ian Hodge, 2006. "Participatory Environmental Education and Willingness to Pay for River Basin Management: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(4), pages 542-561.

    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. Liljas, Bengt & Blumenschein, Karen, 2000. "On hypothetical bias and calibration in cost-benefit studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 53-70, May.
    2. Klose, Thomas, 1999. "The contingent valuation method in health care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 97-123, May.
    3. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    4. Kanya, Lucy & Sanghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 238-261.
    5. Kanya, Lucy & Saghera, Sabina & Lewin, Alex & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2019. "The criterion validity of willingness to pay methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100741, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Onwujekwe, Obinna & Hanson, Kara & Fox-Rushby, Julia, 2005. "Do divergences between stated and actual willingness to pay signify the existence of bias in contingent valuation surveys?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 525-536, February.
    7. 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, June.
    8. Hengjin Dong & Bocar Kouyate & John Cairns & Frederick Mugisha & Rainer Sauerborn, 2003. "Willingness‐to‐pay for community‐based insurance in Burkina Faso," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 849-862, October.
    9. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    10. Bernt Kartman & Nils‐Olov Stålhammar & Magnus Johannesson, 1996. "Valuation of health changes with the contingent valuation method: A test of scope and question order effects," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 531-541, November.
    11. Newell, Laurienne Whinstanley & Swallow, Stephen K., 2002. "Are Stated Preferences Invariant To The Prospect Of Real-Money Choice?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19623, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Mataria, Awad & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stephane & Moatti, Jean-Paul, 2004. "A stated preference approach to assessing health care-quality improvements in Palestine: from theoretical validity to policy implications," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1285-1311, November.
    13. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, K. E., 2000. "Values elicited from open-ended real experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 221-237, March.
    14. M. R. Bhatia & J. A. Fox-Rushby, 2003. "Validity of Willingness to Pay: hypothetical versus actual payment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(12), pages 737-740.
    15. 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.
    16. 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, January.
    17. Helen Neill, 1999. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay: comment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(5), pages 267-269.
    18. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919, November.
    19. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    20. Xiao-Hua Ying & Teh-Wei Hu & Jane Ren & Wen Chen & Ke Xu & Jin-Hui Huang, 2007. "Demand for private health insurance in Chinese urban areas," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1041-1050.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:2:p:147-158. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.