IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/idb/brikps/8424.html

Are Blackout Days Free of Charge?: Valuation of Individual Preferences for Improved Electricity Services

Author

Listed:
  • Jimenez Mori, Raul Alberto

Abstract

Low-quality infrastructure services are persistent in developing countries, a situation mainly affecting the poorest households in contexts of high rates of informal access and heavily subsidized services. This paper exploits choice experiments, specifically designed for formal and informal users, to examine whether households in this situation are willing to pay for electricity service improvements. The analysis takes place in urban Dominican Republic, a country with one of the highest rates of electricity theft and lowest quality of services. The results strongly indicate that households value service improvements, showing average willingness to pay around US$9 for informal users, and 22 percent for formal users with service deficiencies. The estimated valuations are significantly heterogeneous across households, and such variance is mainly explained by household income, satisfaction with the electricity service, and household characteristics, such as family size and dwelling size. These results indicate substantial welfare losses derived from low-quality electricity services equivalent to over 35 percent of the direct fiscal subsidy to the utilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Jimenez Mori, Raul Alberto, 2017. "Are Blackout Days Free of Charge?: Valuation of Individual Preferences for Improved Electricity Services," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 8424, Inter-American Development Bank.
    • Handle: RePEc:idb:brikps:8424
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0011804
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Are-Blackout-Days-Free-of-Charge-Valuation-of-Individual-Preferences-for-Improved-Electricity-Services.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/http://dx.doi.org/10.18235/0011804?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Asher A. Blass & Saul Lach & Charles F. Manski, 2010. "Using Elicited Choice Probabilities To Estimate Random Utility Models: Preferences For Electricity Reliability," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(2), pages 421-440, May.
    2. Jimenez, Raul & Serebrisky, Tomas & Mercado, Jorge, 2016. "What does “better” mean? Perceptions of electricity and water services in Santo Domingo," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 15-21.
    3. Chakravorty, Ujjayant & Pelli, Martino & Ural Marchand, Beyza, 2014. "Does the quality of electricity matter? Evidence from rural India," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 228-247.
    4. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    5. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2010. "Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 720-734, July.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    7. Shaun McRae, 2015. "Infrastructure Quality and the Subsidy Trap," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 35-66, January.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter & Akay, Alpaslan, 2011. "The effect of power outages and cheap talk on willingness to pay to reduce outages," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 790-798, September.
    9. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2008. "How Much is Too Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 165-176, June.
    10. Jimenez Mori, Raul Alberto & Yépez-García, Ariel, 2017. "Understanding the Drivers of Household Energy Spending: Micro Evidence for Latin America," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 8253, Inter-American Development Bank.
    11. Briceno-Garmendia, Cecilia & Estache, Antonio & Shafik, Nemat, 2004. "Infrastructure services in developing countries : access, quality, costs and policy reform," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3468, The World Bank.
    12. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Quiggin, John, 1998. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a "Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up" Questionnaire: Reply," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 195-199, March.
    13. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    14. Mimmi, Luisa M. & Ecer, Sencer, 2010. "An econometric study of illegal electricity connections in the urban favelas of Belo Horizonte, Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5081-5097, September.
    15. Raymond S. Hartman & Michael J. Doane & Chi-Keung Woo, 1991. "Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(1), pages 141-162.
    16. Mary Morrison & Marianne Fay, 2007. "Infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean : Recent Developments and Key Challenges," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7179, April.
    17. repec:aen:journl:2009v30-04-a01 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. 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.
    19. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    20. repec:aen:journl:2009v30-02-a06 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Alok Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet & Robert Berrens, 2001. "Addressing Negative Willingness to Pay in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 173-195, November.
    22. repec:aen:journl:2007v28-01-a04 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Cameron Trudy Ann & Quiggin John, 1994. "Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 218-234, November.
    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. Jimenez Mori, Raul, 2021. "It’s not price; It’s quality. Satisfaction and price fairness perception," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(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. Raul Jimenez Mori, 2025. "Valuation of household preferences for improved electricity services," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 1153-1185, September.
    2. Deutschmann, Joshua W. & Postepska, Agnieszka & Sarr, Leopold, 2021. "Measuring willingness to pay for reliable electricity: Evidence from Senegal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    3. Kassahun, Habtamu Tilahun & Swait, Joffre & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2021. "Distortions in willingness-to-pay for public goods induced by endemic distrust in institutions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Morrissey, Karyn & Plater, Andrew & Dean, Mary, 2018. "The cost of electric power outages in the residential sector: A willingness to pay approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 141-150.
    5. Woo, C.K. & Ho, T. & Shiu, A. & Cheng, Y.S. & Horowitz, I. & Wang, J., 2014. "Residential outage cost estimation: Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 204-210.
    6. Irina Klytchnikova & Michael Lokshin, 2009. "Measuring Welfare Gains from Better Quality Infrastructure," Journal of Infrastructure Development, India Development Foundation, vol. 1(2), pages 87-109, December.
    7. Franceschinis, Cristiano & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John & Moretto, Michele & Cavalli, Raffaele, 2017. "Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 313-326.
    8. Meles, Tensay Hadush & Mekonnen, Alemu & Beyene, Abebe D. & Hassen, Sied & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Sebsibie, Samuel & Klug, Thomas & Jeuland, Marc, 2021. "Households' valuation of power outages in major cities of Ethiopia: An application of stated preference methods," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. Genie, Mesfin G. & Ryan, Mandy & Krucien, Nicolas, 2021. "To pay or not to pay? Cost information processing in the valuation of publicly funded healthcare," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Aweke, Abinet Tilahun & Navrud, Ståle, 2022. "Valuing energy poverty costs: Household welfare loss from electricity blackouts in developing countries," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Cavapozzi, Danilo & Francesconi, Marco & Nicoletti, Cheti, 2024. "Dividing Housework between Partners: Individual Preferences and Social Norms," IZA Discussion Papers 17370, IZA Network @ LISER.
    13. 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.
    14. Carlsson, Fredrik & Raun Mørkbak, Morten & Bøye Olsen, Søren, 2010. "The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments," Working Papers in Economics 470, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Larranaga, Ana Margarita & Arellana, Julian & Senna, Luiz Afonso, 2017. "Encouraging intermodality: A stated preference analysis of freight mode choice in Rio Grande do Sul," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 202-211.
    16. Manhique, Henrique & Wätzold, Frank, 2023. "Effects of Institutional Setting on Value Estimates of Stated Preference Surveys in Developing Economies: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Conserving Biodiversity in The Cape Floristic Region," MPRA Paper 118750, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    18. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    19. John V. Colias & Stella Park & Elizabeth Horn, 2021. "Optimizing B2B product offers with machine learning, mixed logit, and nonlinear programming," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(3), pages 157-172, September.
    20. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:idb:brikps:8424. 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: Felipe Herrera Library (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iadbbus.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.