IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Preference-Directed Regulation When Ethical Environmental Policy Choices Are Formed With Limited Information

  • Christopher Jeffords

    ()

    (Eastern Connecticut State University)

Preference-directed regulation (PDR) can supplement traditional environmental policies through frequent regulatory revision (Livermore, 2007). Stakeholders can use PDR to garner popular support for a specific policy. By providing individuals with information that augments their opinions about the effectiveness of a policy at driving environmental outcomes, stakeholders can induce preference switching in favor of or in detriment to a specific policy. This paper documents the extent to which this is true using cross-sectional data from an original national survey where individuals were asked to choose one of three policies aimed at reducing the number of products manufactured in environmentally damaging ways. Proxies for policy-specifc opinions about the effectiveness of each policy are extracted from the data and form the central focus of inducing preference switching. PDR is operationalized by exogenously augmenting individual opinions via counterfactual simulations within a limited information discrete choice model. The results demonstrate that the extent of preference switching depends not only on the relative change in opinion for a specific policy, but that different forms of PDR may be more effective at inducing preference switching. The substitution patterns arising from the counterfactual simulations are further explained by analytically demonstrating the mitigation of the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives property endemic to traditional multinomial choice models (i.e., full information). Additional empirical results are documented by comparing the results to a full information model, including downward bias in mean utility levels and individual-level preference switching across the limited and full information conditional choice utilities.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.zwickcenter.uconn.edu/documents/Jeffords.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy in its series Working Papers with number 01.

as
in new window

Length: 62 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:zwi:wpaper:01
Contact details of provider: Postal: 1376 Storrs Road, U-21, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-4021
Phone: 860-486-2836
Fax: 860-486-1932
Web page: http://www.zwickcenter.uconn.edu
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Houser, Daniel & Morton, Rebecca & Stratmann, Thomas, 2011. "Turned on or turned out? Campaign advertising, information and voting," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 708-727.
  2. John A. List & Daniel M. Sturm, 2004. "How Elections Matter: Theory and Evidence from Environmental Policy," NBER Working Papers 10609, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. John Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2001. "Econometric Issues In Estimating Consumer Preferences From Stated Preference Data: A Case Study Of The Value Of Automobile Travel Time," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(4), pages 699-707, November.
  4. Ascensión Andina-Díaz, 2007. "Reinforcement vs. change: The political influence of the media," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 65-81, April.
  5. George R. Parsons & GAndrew J. Plantinga & GKevin J. Boyle, 2000. "Narrow Choice Sets in a Random Utility Model of Recreation Demand," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 86-99.
  6. Ching, Andrew & Erdem, Tulin & Keane, Michael, 2007. "The Price Consideration Model of Brand Choice," MPRA Paper 4686, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  7. Eftichios Sartzetakis & Anastasios Xepapadeas & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2012. "The Role of Information Provision as a Policy Instrument to Supplement Environmental Taxes," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(3), pages 347-368, July.
  8. Gunne Grankvist & Ulf Dahlstrand & Anders Biel, 2004. "The Impact of Environmental Labelling on Consumer Preference: Negative vs. Positive Labels," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 213-230, June.
  9. Looney, Adam & Kroft, Kory & Chetty, Raj, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," Scholarly Articles 9748525, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  10. Eftichios S. Sartzetakis & Anastasios Xepapadeas & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2009. "The Role of Information Provision as a Policy Instrument to Supplement Environmental Taxes: Empowering Consumers to Choose Optimally," Working Papers 2009.46, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  11. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
  12. David Konisky, 2011. "Public Preferences for Environmental Policy Responsibility," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 76-100, Winter.
  13. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry, 2008. "Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 152-174, Summer.
  14. Draganska, Michaela & Klapper, Daniel, 2010. "Choice Set Heterogeneity and the Role of Advertising: An Analysis with Micro and Macro Data," Research Papers 2063, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  15. Michelle Sovinsky Goeree, 2008. "Limited Information and Advertising in the U.S. Personal Computer Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(5), pages 1017-1074, 09.
  16. Roger Haefen, 2008. "Latent Consideration Sets and Continuous Demand Systems," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 363-379, November.
  17. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-33, March.
  18. Starr, Martha A., 2009. "The social economics of ethical consumption: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 916-925, December.
  19. Oates, Wallace E. & Portney, Paul R., 2003. "The political economy of environmental policy," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 325-354 Elsevier.
  20. Lupia, Arthur, 1994. " The Effect of Information on Voting Behavior and Electoral Outcomes: An Experimental Study of Direct Legislation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 78(1), pages 65-86, January.
  21. Swait, Joffre & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 1987. "Incorporating random constraints in discrete models of choice set generation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 91-102, April.
  22. Kenneth Train, 2003. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Online economics textbooks, SUNY-Oswego, Department of Economics, number emetr2, December.
  23. Martínez-Espiñeira, Roberto & Lyssenko, Nikita, 2011. "Correcting for the endogeneity of pro-environment behavioral choices in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1435-1439, June.
  24. John Loomis & Bryon Allen, 2008. "Using Non Market Valuation to Inform the Choice Between Permits and Fees in Environmental Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 329-337, July.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zwi:wpaper:01. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.