IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/harvwp/10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using elicitation mechanisms to estimate the demand for nutritious maize: Evidence from experiments in rural Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Banerji, A.
  • Chowdhury, Shyamal K.
  • de Groote, Hugo
  • Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V.
  • Haleegoah, Joyce
  • Ewoo, Manfred

Abstract

In this paper we assess (a) consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a recently developed variety of maize that is high in provitamin A in the context of a public health intervention and (b) the performance of three elicitation mechanisms in estimating WTP in a field experiment in Ghana. The mechanisms that we used for elicitation are the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) mechanism, kth price auction, and choice experiment. The basic design of the experiment involved random allocation of consumers to one of three elicitation methods. This was augmented to include treatment arms to address the effect of (1) participation fees and (2) nutrition information on WTP.

Suggested Citation

  • Banerji, A. & Chowdhury, Shyamal K. & de Groote, Hugo & Meenakshi, Jonnalagadda V. & Haleegoah, Joyce & Ewoo, Manfred, 2013. "Using elicitation mechanisms to estimate the demand for nutritious maize: Evidence from experiments in rural Ghana," HarvestPlus Working Papers 10, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:harvwp:10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/harvestpluswp_10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rutstrom, E. Elisabet & Williams, Melonie B., 2000. "Entitlements and fairness:: an experimental study of distributive preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-89, September.
    2. Hugo De Groote & Simon Chege Kimenju & Ulrich B. Morawetz, 2011. "Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2004. "Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 725-741, December.
    4. Shogren, Jason F. & Margolis, Michael & Koo, Cannon & List, John A., 2001. "A random nth-price auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 409-421, December.
    5. Lawrence Rubey & Frank Lupi, 1997. "Predicting the Effects of Market Reform in Zimbabwe: A Stated Preference Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(1), pages 89-99.
    6. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Matthew Rousu, 2006. "Market Price Endogeneity and Accuracy of Value Elicitation Mechanisms," Chapters,in: Using Experimental Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 2 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    9. Lange, Andreas & Ratan, Anmol, 2010. "Multi-dimensional reference-dependent preferences in sealed-bid auctions - How (most) laboratory experiments differ from the field," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 634-645, March.
    10. Tschirley, David L. & Santos, Ana Paula, 1995. "Who Eats Yellow Maize? Preliminary Results of a Survey of Consumer Maize Preferences in Maputo, Mozambique," Food Security International Development Working Papers 54697, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    11. Lusk Jayson L & Schroeder Ted C., 2006. "Auction Bids and Shopping Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-39, August.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    13. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Lexicographic preferences for rural environmental landscape improvements: implications on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates," Working Papers 0610, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    14. Azucena Gracia & Maria L. Loureiro & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2011. "Are Valuations from Nonhypothetical Choice Experiments Different from Those of Experimental Auctions?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1358-1373.
    15. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2007. "Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1449-1466, September.
    16. Cherry, Todd L. & Kroll, Stephan & Shogren, Jason F., 2005. "The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions: evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 357-365, July.
    17. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    18. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    19. David Hensher & John Rose & William Greene, 2005. "The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 203-222, May.
    20. Jeremy Clark, 2002. "House Money Effects in Public Good Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 223-231, December.
    21. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    22. Tschirley, David & Donovan, Cynthia & Weber, Michael T., 1996. "Food aid and food markets: lessons from Mozambique," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 189-209, May.
    23. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    24. Kagel, John H & Harstad, Ronald M & Levin, Dan, 1987. "Information Impact and Allocation Rules in Auctions with Affiliated Private Values: A Laboratory Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(6), pages 1275-1304, November.
    25. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    26. Chowdhury, Shyamal & Meenakshi, J. V. & Tomlins, Keith & Owori, Constance, 2009. "Are consumers willing to pay more for biofortified foods?: Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda," HarvestPlus Working Papers 3, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Murekezi, Abdoul & Oparinde, Adewale & Birol, Ekin, 2017. "Consumer market segments for biofortified iron beans in Rwanda: Evidence from a hedonic testing study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 35-49.
    2. Banerji, Abhijit & Birol, Ekin & Karandikar, Bhushana & Rampal, Jeevant, 2015. "Information, Branding, Certification, and Consumer Willingness to Pay for High-Iron Pearl Millet: Experimental Evidence from Maharashtra, India," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211346, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Hugo Groote & Clare Narrod & Simon C. Kimenju & Charles Bett & Rosemarie P. B. Scott & Marites M. Tiongco & Zachary M. Gitonga, 2016. "Measuring rural consumers’ willingness to pay for quality labels using experimental auctions: the case of aflatoxin-free maize in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 33-45, January.
    4. Nazli, Hina & Birol, Ekin & Asare-Marfo, Dorene & Tariq, Asjad, 2015. "Wheat Farmers' Preferences for Wheat Traits in Punjab, Pakistan: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211352, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Banerji, Abhijit & Birol, Ekin & Karandikar, Bhushana & Rampal, Jeevant, 2016. "Information, branding, certification, and consumer willingness to pay for high-iron pearl millet: Evidence from experimental auctions in Maharashtra, India," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 133-141.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ghana; West Africa; Africa south of Sahara; Africa; Biofortification; maize; Provitamin A; Vitamin A; demand;

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy

    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:fpr:harvwp:10. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    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 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.

    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.