IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-04840652.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preference elicitation methods and equivalent income: an overview

Author

Listed:
  • Shaun da Costa

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Koen Decancq

    (UA - University of Antwerp)

  • Marc Fleurbaey

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Erik Schokkaert

    (KU Leuven - Catholic University of Leuven = Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Abstract

The equivalent income is a preference-based, interpersonally comparable measure of well-being.Although its theoretical foundations are well-established, empirical applications remain limited, primarily due to the detailed data requirements on individuals' preferences across various wellbeing dimensions. This paper reviews the literature on preference elicitation methods with a focus on estimating equivalent income. We examine several survey-based methods, including contingent valuation, multi-attribute choice or rating experiments, and life satisfaction regressions. The review highlights the advantages and limitations of each method, emphasizing the considerable scope for methodological improvements and innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaun da Costa & Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2024. "Preference elicitation methods and equivalent income: an overview," Working Papers halshs-04840652, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-04840652
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04840652v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04840652v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Alberini, 2019. "Revealed versus Stated Preferences: What Have We Learned About Valuation and Behavior?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 283-298.
    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. Romina Boarini & Marc Fleurbaey & Fabrice Murtin & Paul Schreyer, 2022. "Well‐being during the Great Recession: new evidence from a measure of multi‐dimensional living standards with heterogeneous preferences," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 104-138, January.
    4. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier B. Bargain & H. Xavier Jara, 2023. "Experienced versus decision utility: large‐scale comparison for income–leisure preferences," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 125(4), pages 823-859, October.
    5. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier Bargain & H. Xavier Jara, 2020. "‘Fair’ welfare comparisons with heterogeneous tastes: subjective versus revealed preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 51-84, June.
    6. Marc Fleurbaey & Koichi Tadenuma, 2014. "Universal Social Orderings: An Integrated Theory of Policy Evaluation, Inter-Society Comparisons, and Interpersonal Comparisons," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(3), pages 1071-1101.
    7. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    8. Christian A. Vossler & Ewa Zawojska, 2020. "Behavioral Drivers or Economic Incentives? Toward a Better Understanding of Elicitation Effects in Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(2), pages 279-303.
    9. Fleurbaey, Marc & Blanchet, Didier, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing Sustainability," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199767199, Decembrie.
    10. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521887427, December.
    11. Andriy Danyliv & Milena Pavlova & Irena Gryga & Wim Groot, 2012. "Willingness to pay for physician services: Comparing estimates from a discrete choice experiment and contingent valuation," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 34(2), pages 339-357, June.
    12. Akay, Alpaslan & Bargain, Olivier & Jara Tamayo, H. Xavier, 2023. "Experienced versus decision utility: large-scale comparison for income-leisure preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117746, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    14. Fleurbaey, Marc & Schwandt, Hannes, 2015. "Do People Seek to Maximize Their Subjective Well?Being?," IZA Discussion Papers 9450, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Welsch, Heinz, 2006. "Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 801-813, July.
    16. Daniel J. Benjamin & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Alex Rees-Jones, 2012. "What Do You Think Would Make You Happier? What Do You Think You Would Choose?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2083-2110, August.
    17. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    18. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    19. Martin Ravallion & Kristen Himelein & Kathleen Beegle, 2016. "Can Subjective Questions on Economic Welfare Be Trusted?," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(4), pages 697-726.
    20. Robin S. Gregory, 2000. "Valuing Environmental Policy Options: A Case Study Comparison of Multiattribute and Contingent Valuation Survey Methods," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 151-173.
    21. Desvousges, William & Mathews, Kristy & Train, Kenneth, 2012. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 121-128.
    22. Danilo Cavapozzi & Wei Han & Raffaele Miniaci, 2015. "Alternative weighting structures for multidimensional poverty assessment," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 13(3), pages 425-447, September.
    23. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    24. Adler, Matthew D. & Fleurbaey, Marc (ed.), 2016. "The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199325818, Decembrie.
    25. Ori Heffetz & Matthew Rabin, 2013. "Conclusions Regarding Cross-Group Differences in Happiness Depend on Difficulty of Reaching Respondents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 3001-3021, December.
    26. 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.
    27. Angus Deaton, 1979. "The Distance Function in Consumer Behaviour with Applications to Index Numbers and Optimal Taxation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 46(3), pages 391-405.
    28. Simon Moore & Jonathan Shepherd, 2006. "The cost of fear: shadow pricing the intangible costs of crime," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 293-300.
    29. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    30. Bernheim, B. Douglas, 2016. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Unified Approach to Behavioral Welfare Economics1," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 12-68, April.
    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. DA COSTA Shaun Mark, 2025. "Composite indices and preference-based measures of wellbeing," JRC Research Reports JRC141107, Joint Research Centre.

    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. Shaun Da Costa; & Koen Decancq; & Marc Fleurbaey; & Erik Schokkaert;, 2024. "Preference elicitation methods and equivalent income: an overview," Working Papers 2409, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    2. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    3. Decancq, Koen & Olivera, Javier & Schokkaert, Erik, 2025. "Ethnic differences and preference heterogeneity: assessing social pensions in Peru," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126601, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    5. DECANCQ Koen & OLIVERA Javier & SCHOKKAERT Erik, 2018. "Program evaluation and ethnic differences: the Pension 65 program in Peru," LISER Working Paper Series 2018-21, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    8. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier B. Bargain & H. Xavier Jara, 2023. "Experienced versus decision utility: large‐scale comparison for income–leisure preferences," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 125(4), pages 823-859, October.
    9. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2019. "Multidimensional poverty measurement with individual preferences," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 17(1), pages 29-49, March.
    10. 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).
    11. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    12. Decancq, Koen & Nys, Annemie, 2021. "Non-parametric well-being comparisons," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    13. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball, 2023. "From Happiness Data to Economic Conclusions," NBER Working Papers 31727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier Bargain & H. Xavier Jara, 2020. "‘Fair’ welfare comparisons with heterogeneous tastes: subjective versus revealed preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 51-84, June.
    16. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    20. Fabio Verneau & Francesco La Barbera & Teresa Del Giudice, 2017. "The Role of Implicit Associations in the Hypothetical Bias," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 312-328, July.

    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:hal:wpaper:halshs-04840652. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.