IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mil/wpdepa/2017-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Willingness-to-Pay for Science as a Public Good: A Contingent Valuation Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Massimo FLORIO
  • Francesco GIFFONI

Abstract

Every year a significant amount of money is invested by governments on large-scale research infrastructures such as particle accelerators, telescopes, robotic space probes, biological data banks, oceanographic vessels, etc. The majority of these projects is funded through general taxation, and hence taxpayers are implicitly called to contribute to scientific discovery. Against the actual tax burden, how much the general public is actually willing to pay for investment in science? This paper explores the attitudes of young science-outsiders (the taxpayers of tomorrow) by the design of a pilot experiment involving a sample of undergraduate students in economics at University of Milan. We were interested in building a replicable survey setting aimed at eliciting the willingness to pay (WTP) for the discovery potential of a basic science project. Our case study is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the most powerful particle accelerator worldwide. The experiment takes the form of a Contingent Valuation Referendum-like in depth interview. Both parametric and non-parametric estimators were used to calculate the mean WTP. Our results suggest that the sample mean WTP for the LHC discoveries ranges from EUR 23 to 28 per person annually. This is a relatively high result, several times in excess of the actual average tax-burden for supporting the CERN budget by Italian taxpayers, but can be compared with several previous empirical findings about the WTP for the non-use value of specific cultural and environmental goods. Building on this pilot experiment, we discuss possible future research avenues in order to extend to representative samples of taxpayers the empirical analysis of WTP for scientific discovery.

Suggested Citation

  • Massimo FLORIO & Francesco GIFFONI, 2017. "Willingness-to-Pay for Science as a Public Good: A Contingent Valuation Experiment," Departmental Working Papers 2017-17, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
  • Handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2017-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.demm.unimi.it/files/wp/2017/DEMM-2017_17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    2. Johansson,Per-Olov & Kriström,Bengt, 2015. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Project Appraisal," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107121027, February.
    3. Trine Hansen, 1997. "The Willingness-to-Pay for the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen as a Public Good," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 21(1), pages 1-28, March.
    4. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Eric Thompson & Mark Berger & Glenn Blomquist & Steven Allen, 2002. "Valuing the Arts: A Contingent Valuation Approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 26(2), pages 87-113, May.
    7. John W. Duffield & David A. Patterson, 1991. "Inference and Optimal Design for a Welfare Measure in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(2), pages 225-239.
    8. Heberlein, Thomas A. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate, 2005. "Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, July.
    9. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.
    10. Battistoni, Giuseppe & Genco, Mario & Marsilio, Marta & Pancotti, Chiara & Rossi, Sandro & Vignetti, Silvia, 2016. "Cost–benefit analysis of applied research infrastructure. Evidence from health care," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 79-91.
    11. Johansson,Per-Olov & Kriström,Bengt, 2015. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Project Appraisal," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107548220, February.
    12. 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.
    13. Masahide Watanabe & Kota Asano, 2009. "Distribution Free Consistent Estimation of Mean WTP in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(1), pages 1-10, September.
    14. Daniel McFadden, 1994. "Contingent Valuation and Social Choice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 689-708.
    15. Florio, Massimo & Forte, Stefano & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2016. "Forecasting the socio-economic impact of the Large Hadron Collider: A cost–benefit analysis to 2025 and beyond," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 38-53.
    16. Gelsomina CATALANO & Massimo FLORIO & Francesco GIFFONI, 2016. "Willingness to Pay for Basic Research: A Contingent Valuation Experiment on the Large Hadron Collider," Departmental Working Papers 2016-03, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    17. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    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. Gelsomina CATALANO & Massimo FLORIO & Francesco GIFFONI, 2016. "Willingness to Pay for Basic Research: A Contingent Valuation Experiment on the Large Hadron Collider," Departmental Working Papers 2016-03, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    2. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    3. Massimo FLORIO & Francesco GIFFONI & Gelsomina CATALANO, 2018. "Should Governments Fund Basic Science? Evidence from a Willingness-to-pay Experiment in Five Universities," Departmental Working Papers 2018-10, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    4. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, September.
    5. Nduka, Eleanya, 2021. "How to get rural households out of energy poverty in Nigeria: A contingent valuation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    6. Jette Jacobsen & Nick Hanley, 2009. "Are There Income Effects on Global Willingness to Pay for Biodiversity Conservation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(2), pages 137-160, June.
    7. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    8. Samuel D. Zapata & Carlos E. Carpio, 2014. "The theoretical structure of producer willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 613-623, September.
    9. Timothy C. Haab, "undated". "Indifference or Misspecification? The Distributional Impacts of Indifference on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Working Papers 9607, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    10. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    11. Sergio Ardila & Ricardo Quiroga & William J. Vaughan, 1998. "A Review of the Use of Contingent Valuation Methods in Project Analysis at the Inter-American Development Bank," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 33298, Inter-American Development Bank.
    12. Ju-Hee Kim & Ga-Eun Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "A Valuation of the Restoration of Hwangnyongsa Temple in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(2), pages 1-7, January.
    13. Torero, Maximo & Chowdhury, Shyamal K. & Galdo, Virgilio, 2003. "Willingness to pay for the rural telephone service in Bangladesh and Peru," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 327-361, September.
    14. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    15. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni, 2020. "A contingent valuation experiment about future particle accelerators at CERN," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-24, March.
    16. Ghosh, Ranjan & Goyal, Yugank & Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian, 2017. "Are small firms willing to pay for improved power supply? Evidence from a contingent valuation study in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 659-665.
    17. John C. Whitehead, "undated". "A Comment on “An Adding Up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality”," Working Papers 17-01_R, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    18. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    19. Vásquez-Lavín, Felipe & Carrasco, Moisés & Barrientos, Manuel & Gelcich, Stefan & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D., 2021. "Estimating discount rates for environmental goods: Are People’s responses inadequate to frequency of payments?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    20. N. Ebadi & S. A. Javadi & R. Moghaddasi, 2021. "Conservation value of environmental resources in Iran’s Gurgo and Maleshoure rangelands," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 9243-9259, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research infrastructures; Willingness-to-pay; Science as public good; Non-use value; Large hadron collider;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    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:mil:wpdepa:2017-17. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damilit.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 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: DEMM Working Papers The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask DEMM Working Papers to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damilit.html .

    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.