IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/cepdps/dp1632.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Willing to pay for security: a discrete choice experiment to analyse labour supply preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Nikhil Datta

Abstract

This paper investigates the extent to which labour supply preferences are responsible for the marked rise in atypical work arrangements in the UK and US. By employing vignettes in a discrete job choice experiment in a representative survey, I estimate the distribution for preferences and willingness-to-pay over various job attributes. The list of attributes includes key distinguishing factors of typical and atypical work arrangements, such as security, work-related benefits, flexibility, autonomy and taxation implications. The results are indicative that the majority of the population prefer characteristics associated with traditional employee-employer relationships, and this preference holds even when analysing just the sub-sample of those in atypical work arrangements. Additionally, preferences across the UK and US are very similar, despite differences in labour market regulations. Rather than suggesting that labour supply preferences have contributed to the increase in atypical work arrangements, I find that the changing nature of work is likely to have significant negative welfare implications for many workers.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikhil Datta, 2019. "Willing to pay for security: a discrete choice experiment to analyse labour supply preferences," CEP Discussion Papers dp1632, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  • Handle: RePEc:cep:cepdps:dp1632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1632.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yohei Mitani & Nicholas Flores, 2014. "Hypothetical Bias Reconsidered: Payment and Provision Uncertainties in a Threshold Provision Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 433-454, November.
    2. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    3. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    4. Falk, Armin & Becker, Anke & Dohmen, Thomas & Huffman, David B. & Sunde, Uwe, 2016. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 9674, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    6. Blumenschein, Karen & Johannesson, Magnus & Yokoyama, Krista K. & Freeman, Patricia R., 2001. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 441-457, May.
    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. Ruiz-Valenzuela, Jenifer, 2020. "Intergenerational effects of employment protection reforms," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 104016, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Dhingra, Swati & Machin, Stephen, 2020. "The Crisis and Job Guarantees in Urban India," IZA Discussion Papers 13760, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Jack Blundell, 2020. "Clusters in UK Self-Employment," CEP Occasional Papers 048, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    4. Adams-Prassl, Abigail & Balgova, Maria & Qian, Matthias, 2020. "Flexible Work Arrangements in Low Wage Jobs: Evidence from Job Vacancy Data," IZA Discussion Papers 13691, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Ruiz-Valenzuela, Jenifer, 2020. "Intergenerational effects of employment protection reforms," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).

    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. Datta, Nikhil, 2019. "Willing to pay for security: a discrete choice experiment to analyse labour supply preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103390, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    3. Maria Alejandra Cattaneo & Stefan C. Wolter, 2021. ""Against all odds" Does awareness of the risk of failure matter for educational choices?," Economics of Education Working Paper Series 0181, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    4. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Mohammed Hussen Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "An analysis of the impacts of tasting experience and peer effects on consumers’ willingness to pay for novel foods," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 653-674, October.
    6. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    7. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    8. Gustafsson-Wright, Emily & Asfaw, Abay & van der Gaag, Jacques, 2009. "Willingness to pay for health insurance: An analysis of the potential market for new low-cost health insurance products in Namibia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1351-1359, November.
    9. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    10. Tobias Holmsgaard Larsen & Thomas Lundhede & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2020. "Assessing the value of surface water and groundwater quality improvements when time lags and outcome uncertainty exist: Results from a choice experiment survey across four different countries," IFRO Working Paper 2020/12, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    11. Eamon O’Shea & Jennifer Stewart & Cam Donaldson & Phil Shackley, 2001. "Eliciting Preferences for Resource Allocation in Health Care," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 32(3), pages 217-238.
    12. Valentino Dardanone & Carla Guerriero, 2019. "Children's Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection," CSEF Working Papers 550, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    13. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    15. Daniel Horn & Hubert Kiss Janos & Sára Khayouti, 2020. "Does trust associate with political regime?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2013, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    16. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    17. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    18. Abeler, Johannes & Falk, Armin & Kosse, Fabian, 2021. "Malleability of preferences for honesty," CEPR Discussion Papers 16164, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    20. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    atypical work; self-employment; willingness-to-pay; experiment; labour supply preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J32 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits; Retirement Plans; Private Pensions
    • J81 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Standards - - - Working Conditions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cep:cepdps:dp1632. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/series.asp?prog=CEP .

    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: (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/series.asp?prog=CEP .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.