IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/rwp06-049.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Permits to Elicit Information

Author

Listed:
  • Luttmer, Erzo F. P.

    (Harvard U)

  • Zeckhauser, Richard
  • Kousky, Carolyn

Abstract

This paper identifies a novel function for permits: they can be used by the government as an instrument to elicit information about the intentions of private investors to put capital into an area. Such information is a crucial input for the government’s decision on how much infrastructure to build in an area, such as the capacity of an elementary school or a public transit system in an expanding community. Decisions on infrastructure that protects against natural disasters require precisely this information. For example, a levee should be built higher and stronger the more capital it will protect. Current experience in New Orleans makes this evident, particularly given the considerable uncertainties about the private sector’s intention of returning to or investing in areas at risk. Permits can replace unreliable “cheap talk” elicitation devices, such as surveys or town meetings, and can be used as an input into prediction or futures markets. An important innovation in our procedure is to use markets to elicit information separately from hedgers (the investors in our model) and speculators.

Suggested Citation

  • Luttmer, Erzo F. P. & Zeckhauser, Richard & Kousky, Carolyn, 2006. "Permits to Elicit Information," Working Paper Series rwp06-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp06-049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=4309&type=WPN
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carolyn Kousky & Erzo Luttmer & Richard Zeckhauser, 2006. "Private investment and government protection," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 73-100, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Min Ding & Rajdeep Grewal & John Liechty, 2005. "Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis," Framed Field Experiments 00139, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    5. Karl E. Case & Robert J. Shiller & Allan N. Weiss, 1991. "Index-Based Futures and Options Markets in Real Estate," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1006, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    2. Erik Brynjolfsson & Avinash Collis & Felix Eggers, 2019. "Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(15), pages 7250-7255, April.
    3. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    4. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    7. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    8. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    9. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2021. "On Adding-Up as a Validity Criterion for Stated-Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(3), pages 587-601, November.
    10. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    12. Felix Arnold & Ronny Freier & Magdalena Pallauf & David Stadelmann, 2015. "Voting for direct democratic participation: Evidence from an initiative election," CREMA Working Paper Series 2015-11, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Rock, Joachim & Rüter, Sebastian & Weimar, Holger & Dieter, Matthias, 2017. "Costs and carbon sequestration potential of alternative forest management measures in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 88-97.
    15. Grösche, Peter & Schröder, Carsten, 2011. "Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 363-370, March.
    16. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    17. David Blandford, 2010. "Presidential Address: The Visible or Invisible Hand? The Balance Between Markets and Regulation in Agricultural Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 459-479, September.
    18. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    19. Gubanova, Tatiana & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & McMillan, Melville, 2009. "‘Pocket and Pot’: Hypothetical Bias in a No-Free-Riding Public Contribution Game," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49318, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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:ecl:harjfk:rwp06-049. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    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.