Znaczenie zmienności krańcowej użyteczności kosztu ponoszonego przez konsumenta dla wyceny dóbr nierynkowych

• Authors: Budziński Wiktor

Title variants

EN

The effects of non-constant marginal utility of cost for public goods valuation

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

PL

„Tłumienie kosztu” to zjawisko charakteryzujące się malejącą (w wartościach absolutnych) krańcową użytecznością ponoszonego przez konsumenta kosztu. Efekt ten został zaobserwowany w ba- daniach empirycznych, w których wykorzystano modele wyborów dyskretnych. Jego istnienie trudno pogodzić z neoklasyczną teorią ekonomii. W literaturze można znaleźć postulat, że tłumienie kosztu jest spowodowane błędną specyfikacją modelu – nieuwzględnieniem heterogeniczności preferencji. Przeprowadzona w tym artykule ana- liza pokazuje, że tak nie jest: w zależności od założeń dotyczących parametrycznego rozkładu preferencji w populacji, mimo zmian siły tego efektu, w każdym przypadku pozostaje on istotny statystycznie. Badanie zostało przeprowadzone w kontekście preferencji Polaków dotyczących zarządzania lasami państwowymi.

EN

The paper investigates the importance of the so called ‘cost damping’ effect, understood as decreasing (in absolute terms) marginal utility of cost incurred by consumers. The effect was observed in many em- pirical studies applying discrete choice models, however, its presence is difficult to justify in the light of neoclassical economic theory. It has been proposed that cost damping can occur due to model mis-specification in the form of not accounting for preference heterogeneity. My analysis suggest otherwise – although the strength of the effect differs with respect to the assumptions regarding the functional form of the distribution of preferences in the population, the effect itself remains statistically significant. The analysis was conducted in the context of preferences regarding public forests management pro- grams in Poland.

Keywords

PL

tłumienie kosztu; wycena dóbr nierynkowych; modelowanie preferencji konsumentów; metoda wyboru warunkowego; modele wyborów dyskretnych

EN

cost damping; non-market goods valuation; modelling consumer preferences; discrete choice experiment; discrete choice models

• Publisher: Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
• Journal: Ekonomia. Rynek, Gospodarka, Społeczeństwo
• Year: 2015
• Issue: 43
• Pages: 7-39

Contributors

author

Budziński Wiktor

• Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych, Uniwersytet Warszawski

References

• Blayac, Thierry. 2003. „Value of travel time: a theoretical legitimization of some Box-Cox transformations in discrete choice models”. Journées de Microéconomie Appliquée 20.
• Blayac, Thierry i Anne Causse. 2001. „Value of travel time: a theoretical legitimization of some nonlinear representative utility in discrete choice models”. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 35 (4): 391−400.
• Colombo, Sergio, Nicholas Hanley i Cati Torres. 2011. Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement? University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
• Czajkowski, Mikołaj, Marek Giergiczny i William H. Greene. 2014a. „Learning and fatigue effects revisited: investigating the effects of accounting for unobservable preference and scale heterogeneity”. Land Economics 90 (2): 324−351.
• Czajkowski, Mikołaj, Anna Bartczak, Marek Giergiczny, Stale Navrud i Tomasz Żylicz. 2014b. „Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management”. Forest Policy and Economics 39:1−12.
• Daly, Andrew. 2010. Cost Damping in Travel Demand Models. W: Technical Reports: RAND Corporation.
• Daly, Andrew i Juan Carrasco. 2009. The influence of trip length on marginal time and money values. Tekst przedstawiony na International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research.
• Daly, Andrew, Stephane Hess i Kenneth Train. 2012. „Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models”. Transportation 39 (1): 19−31.
• Ferrini, Silvia i Riccardo Scarpa. 2007. „Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53 (3): 342−363.
• Fox, James, Andrew Daly i B. Patruni. 2009. Improving the treatment of cost in large scale models. Tekst przedstawiony na European Transport Conference.
• Freeman III, A. Myrick, Joseph A. Herriges i Catherine L. Kling. 2014. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. London: Routledge.
• Garrido, Rodrigo A. 2003. Estimation performance of low discrepancy sequences in stated preferences. Tekst przedstawiony na 10th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research.
• Giergiczny, Marek, Sviataslau Valasiuk, Mikołaj Czajkowski, Maria De Salvo i Giovanni Signorello. 2012. „Including cost income ratio into utility function as a way of dealing with ‘exploding’ implicit prices in mixed logit models”. Journal of Forest Economics 18 (4): 370−380.
• Gunn, Hugh. 2001. „Spatial and temporal transferability of relationships between travel demand, trip cost and travel time”. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 37 (2–3): 163−189.
• Hoyos, David. 2010. „The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments”. Ecological Economics 69 (8): 1595−1603.
• Lanz, Bruno, Allan Provins, I. Bateman, Riccardo Scarpa, Kenneth G Willis i Ece Ozdemiroglu. 2009. Investigating willingness to pay-willingness to accept asymmetry in choice experiments. Tekst przedstawiony na International Choice Modelling Conference, Harrogate, England.
• Mabit, Stefan L., Jeppe Rich, Peter Burge i Dimitris Potoglou. 2013. „Valuation of travel time for international long-distance travel – results from the Fehmarn Belt stated choice experiment”. Journal of Transport Geography 33:153−161.
• Mandel, Benedikt, Marc Gaudry i Werner Rothengatter. 1994. „Linear or nonlinear utility functions in logit models? The impact on German high-speed rail demand forecasts”. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 28 (2): 91−101.
• Masiero, Lorenzo, and David A. Hensher. 2010. „Analyzing loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity in a freight transport stated choice experiment”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44 (5): 349−358.
• McFadden, Daniel. 1974. „Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior”. W: Frontiers in Econometrics, red. P. Zarembka, 105−142. New York: Academic Press.
• McFadden, Daniel i Kenneth Train. 2000. „Mixed MNL models for discrete response”. Journal of Applied Econometrics 15 (5): 447−470.
• Munger, D., P. L’Ecuyer, F. Bastin, C. Cirillo i B. Tuffin. 2012. „Estimation of the mixed logit likelihood function by randomized quasi-Monte Carlo”. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 46 (2): 305−320.
• Orro, Alfonso, Margarita Novales i Francisco G. Benitez. 2005. Nonlinearity and taste heterogeneity influence on discrete choice model forecasts. Tekst przedstawiony na European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France.
• Rotaris, Lucia, Romeo Danielis, Igor Sarman i Edoardo Marcucci. 2012. „Testing for nonlinearity in the choice of a freight transport service”. European Transport\ Trasporti Europei 50.
• Stathopoulos, Amanda, i Stephane Hess. 2012. „Revisiting reference point formation, gains–losses asymmetry and non-linear sensitivities with an emphasis on attribute specific treatment”. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46 (10): 1673−1689.
• Tapley, Nigel, Mark Wardman i Gerard Whelan. 2006. Nonlinearities in discrete choice attribute valuations. Wystąpienie na European Transport Conference, Strasbourg, France.
• Torres, Cati, Nick Hanley i Antoni Riera. 2011. „How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 62 (1): 111−121.
• Train, Kenneth i Melvyn Weeks. 2005. „Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to-Pay Space”. W: Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics, red. Riccardo Scarpa i Anna Alberini, 1−16. Amsterdam: Springer.
• Tversky, Amos i Daniel Kahneman. 1991. „Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (4): 1039−1061.
• Vuong, Quang H. 1989. „Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses”. Econometrica 57 (2): 307−333.

Identifiers

DOI

10.17451/eko/43/2015/145