Deriving welfare measures in discrete choice experiments: a comment to Lancsar and Savage (1)
Lancsar and Savage argue that current methods of deriving welfare estimates, using discrete choice experiments, are inconsistent with random utility and welfare theory. In this paper I show that this not the case. The general formula proposed by Small and Rosen for estimating welfare, which Lancsar and Savage claim should be used, reduces to the method used by health economists for state of the world models. The important question then becomes when are state of the world models, as opposed to multiple alternative models, appropriate? Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 13 (2004)
Issue (Month): 9 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
- Harvey S. Rosen & Kenneth A. Small, 1979.
"Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models,"
NBER Working Papers
0319, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-30, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:9:p:909-912. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.