IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mil/wpdepa/2018-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Should Governments Fund Basic Science? Evidence from a Willingness-to-pay Experiment in Five Universities

Author

Listed:
  • Massimo FLORIO
  • Francesco GIFFONI
  • Gelsomina CATALANO

Abstract

Tax-payers are usually the ultimate funders of large-scale research infrastructures (RIs), but the expected discoveries of such projects often do not have any known use-value. By interviewing 1,022 undergraduates, we study the drivers of preferences for paying for basic research, which are still little known. We focus on the LHC at CERN, where the Higgs boson was discovered. Income, awareness, and positive attitudes towards science drive a positive willingness-to-pay for science. Students in social sciences and the humanities are willing to contribute to scientific curricula at least as much as their peers. Findings offer support to government funding of basic research as a public good.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:mil:wpdepa:2018-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.demm.unimi.it/files/wp/2018/DEMM-2018-10wp.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
    2. Johansson,Per-Olov & Kriström,Bengt, 2015. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Project Appraisal," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107121027.
    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. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    7. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    8. Walter Santagata & Giovanni Signorello, 2000. "Contingent Valuation of a Cultural Public Good and Policy Design: The Case of ``Napoli Musei Aperti''," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 24(3), pages 181-204, August.
    9. Florio, Massimo & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2016. "Social benefits and costs of large scale research infrastructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 65-78.
    10. Kwak, So-Yoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2012. "Ex-ante evaluation of the consumers' preference for the 4th generation mobile communications service," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(7), pages 1312-1318.
    11. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    12. Simon Cheng & J. Scott Long, 2007. "Testing for IIA in the Multinomial Logit Model," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(4), pages 583-600, May.
    13. Brun, Filippo, 2002. "Multifunctionality of mountain forests and economic evaluation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 101-112, June.
    14. Echeverria, Jaime & Hanrahan, Michael & Solorzano, Raul, 1995. "Valuation of non-priced amenities provided by the biological resources within the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 43-52, April.
    15. Marilena Pollicino & David Maddison, 2001. "Valuing the Benefits of Cleaning Lincoln Cathedral," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 25(2), pages 131-148, May.
    16. Robert Mcclelland & Arthur C. Brooks, 2004. "What is the Real Relationship between Income and Charitable Giving?," Public Finance Review, , vol. 32(5), pages 483-497, September.
    17. Frank, Björn & Enkawa, Takao & Schvaneveldt, Shane J. & Herbas Torrico, Boris, 2015. "Antecedents and consequences of innate willingness to pay for innovations: Understanding motivations and consumer preferences of prospective early adopters," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 252-266.
    18. Ahlheim, Michael & Schneider, Friedrich, 2013. "Considering Household Size in Contingent Valuation Studies," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79974, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Harris, Mark N. & Zhao, Xueyan, 2007. "A zero-inflated ordered probit model, with an application to modelling tobacco consumption," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 1073-1099, December.
    20. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & O'Conor, Richard M, 1996. "The Value of Private Safety versus the Value of Public Safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 263-275, November.
    21. Seoyong Kim & Sang-Ok Choi & Jaesun Wang, 2014. "Individual perception vs. structural context: Searching for multilevel determinants of social acceptance of new science and technology across 34 countries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 44-57.
    22. Browning,Martin & Chiappori,Pierre-André & Weiss,Yoram, 2014. "Economics of the Family," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521795395, January.
    23. Johansson,Per-Olov & Kriström,Bengt, 2015. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Project Appraisal," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107548220.
    24. Peter Bohm, 1972. "Estimating the demand for public goods: An experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00126, The Field Experiments Website.
    25. Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo, 2006. "Combining the travel cost and contingent behavior methods to value cultural heritage sites: Evidence from Armenia," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 30(4), pages 287-304, December.
    26. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Massimo FLORIO & Francesco GIFFONI, 2019. "L’impatto sociale della produzione di scienza su larga scala: come governarlo?," Departmental Working Papers 2019-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    3. Giulio Ecchia & Chris O'Leary & Luciano Messori, 2021. "Ex‐ante socio‐economic impact assessment for a social science research infrastructure: The case of EuroCohort," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(3), pages 531-563, September.
    4. Giffoni, Francesco & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "Public support of science: A contingent valuation study of citizens' attitudes about CERN with and without information about implicit taxes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).

    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. 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.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. Liam Delaney & Francis O’Toole, 2004. "Irish Public Service Broadcasting - A Contingent Valuation Analysis," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 35(3), pages 321-350.
    5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    6. Anne-Kathrin LAST, 2008. "The Monetary Value of Cultural Goods: A Contingent Valuation Study of the Municipal Supply of Cultural Goods in Lueneburg, Germany," EcoMod2008 23800074, EcoMod.
    7. Dragicevic, Arnaud Z. & Ettinger, David, 2011. "Private Valuation of a Public Good in Three Auction Mechanisms," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 1-29, April.
    8. Bernard Ruffieux & Anne Rozan & Stéphane Robin, 2008. "Mesurer les préférences du consommateur pour orienter les décisions des pouvoirs publics : l'apport de la méthode expérimentale," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 182(1), pages 113-127.
    9. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    10. Rogers, Abbie A. & Cleland, Jonelle, 2010. "Comparing Scientist and Public Preferences for Conserving Environmental Systems: A Case of the Kimberley’s Tropical Waterways and Wetlands," Research Reports 107579, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. 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.
    12. Posavac, Steven S., 1998. "Strategic overbidding in contingent valuation: Stated economic value of public goods varies according to consumers expectations of funding source," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 205-214, April.
    13. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Carlos Jurado-Rivas & Marcelino Sánchez-Rivero, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for More Sustainable Tourism Destinations in World Heritage Cities: The Case of Caceres, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-21, October.
    15. Mirko Moro & Karen Mayor & Seán Lyons & Richard S J Tol, 2013. "Does the Housing Market Reflect Cultural Heritage? A Case Study of Greater Dublin," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(12), pages 2884-2903, December.
    16. Anne-Kathrin Last, 2007. "The Monetary Value of Cultural Goods: A Contingent Valuation Study of the Municipal Supply of Cultural Goods in Lueneburg, Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 63, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    17. Alberini, Anna & Longo, Alberto, 2007. "Valuing the Cultural Monuments of Armenia: Bayesian Updating of Prior Beliefs in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 9337, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    18. 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).
    19. Tuan, Hun Tran & Navrud,Stale, 2012. "Capturing the Benefits of Preserving World Heritage Cultural Heritage Sites," EBLA Working Papers 201202, University of Turin.
    20. Price, Colin, 8. "Superficial citizens and sophisticated consumers: what questions," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 41, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Research infrastructures; Basic science; Non-Use Value; Willingness-to-pay; Large Hadron Collider; CERN; Particle Physics;
    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:2018-10. 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: DEMM Working Papers (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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.