USING HAPPINESS DATA FOR NON- MARKETED GOODS VALUATION: ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS
https://doi.org/10.34023/2313-6383-2014-0-9-24-31
Abstract
In addition to standard methods of non-market valuation, a novel approach has recently emerged that suggests valuing non-marketed goods on the basis of households' self-valuations of their happiness. The fundamental assumption is that such self-valuations provide consistent information of households' utility. The new method allows tackling some problems of more traditional approaches including the revealed preferences method, which is based on the analysis of factual consumer choice and real expenditures on risk reduction, and the contingent valuation method, which is based on subjective estimates of a public good's monetary value. The article discusses both positive and negative characteristics of the proposed method.
About the Authors
Inna Blam
Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergey Kovalev
Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Freeman A.M. III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: RFF Press, 2003.
2. Фон Нейман Дж. Моргенштерн О. Теория игр и экономическое поведение. - М.: Наука, 1970.
3. Теория «общественных благ» берет начало с работы: Samuelson Paul A. The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure // Review of Economics and Statistics. 1954, No 36 (4). P. 387-389.
4. Hausman J.A. Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless // Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2012. № 26 (4). P. 43-56.
5. Diamond P.A. and J.A. Hausman. Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number? // Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1994. № 8(4). P. 45-64.
6. Kahneman D. and J. Knetsch. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction // Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1992. No 22(1). P. 57-70.
7. Murphy J.J. and T.H. Stevens. Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics // Agricultural Resource Economics Review. 2004. No 33(2). P. 182-192.
8. Johnston R.J. Is Hypothetical Bias Universal? Validating Contingent Valuation Responses Using a Binding Public Referendum // Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 2006. No 52(1). P. 469-481.
9. Kling C.L.; Phaneuf D.J.; Zhao J. From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better than No Number? // The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2012. No 26 (4). P. 3-26.
10. Milgrom P. Is Sympathy an Economic Value? / in Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, edited by J. Hausman, Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 1993. P. 417-442.
11. Samples K.C. and J.R. Hollyer. Contingent Valuation of Wildlife Resources in the Presence of Substitutes and Complements / in Johnson, R.L., and G.V. Johnson, eds. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: Issues, Theory and Applications. Boulder: Westview Press, 1990. P. 177-192.
12. Desvousges W.H., Johnson F.R., Dunford R.W., Boyle K.J., Hudson S. P. and Wilso, K.N. Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability / in Hausman, J., ed., Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 1993. P. 91-164.
13. Tiebout C.M. A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures // Journal of Political Economy. 1956. No 64. P. 416-424.
14. Buchanan J.M. An Economic Theory of Clubs // Economica. 1965. No 32. P. 1-14.
15. Kahnemann D., Wakker P.P., Sarin R. Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility // The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1997. No 112 (2). P. 375-405.
16. Kahnemann D., Sudgen R. Experienced utility as a standard of policy evaluation // Environmental and Resource Economics. 2005. No 32. P. 161-181.
17. Di Tella R., Mac Culloch R.J., Oswald A.J. The macroeconomics of happiness // Review of Economics and Statistics. 2003. No 85. P. 809-827.
18. Frey B.S., Stutzer A. Happiness and Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.
19. Van Praag B.M.S., Baarsma B.E. Using Happiness Surveys to Value Intangibles: The Case of Airport Noise // The Economic Journal. 2005. No 115. P. 224-246.
20. Cantril H. The Pattern of Human Concern. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1965.
21. Rehdanz K., Maddison D. Local environmental quality and life-satisfaction in Germany // Ecological Economics. 2008. No 64. P. 787-797.
22. Блам И.Ю. Счастье, качество питьевой воды и воздух, которым мы дышим // Вопросы статистики. 2012. № 9. С. 45-51.
23. Gnedenko E., Gorbunova Z., Safonov G. Contingent Valuation of drinking water quality in Samara city. EERC Final Report. 2001. No 98-263E.
24. Welsch H. Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data // Ecological Economics. 2006. No 58. P. 801- 813.
25. Rehdanz K., Maddison D. Climate and happiness // Ecological Economics. 2005. No 52, P. 111-125.
26. MacKerron G., Mourato S. Life satisfaction and air quality in London // Ecological Economics. 2009. № 68. P. 1441-1453.
27. Smyth R., Mishra V., Qian X. The Environment and Well-Being in Urban China // Ecological Economics. 2008. No 68. P. 547 - 555.
28. Ferreira S., Moro M. On the Use of Subjective Well-Being Data for Environmental Valuation // Environmental and Resource Economics, 2010. No 46. P. 249-273.
29. Frey B.S., Luechinger S., Stutzer A. Calculating Tragedy: Assessing The Costs Of Terrorism. // Journal of Economic Surveys. 2007. No. 21(1). P. 1-24.
30. Blomquist G.C., Berger M.C., Hoehn J.P. New Estimates of Quality of Life in Urban Areas // American Economic Review. 1988. No 78. P. 89-107.
Review
For citations:
Blam I., Kovalev S. USING HAPPINESS DATA FOR NON- MARKETED GOODS VALUATION: ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS. Voprosy statistiki. 2014;(9):24-31. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34023/2313-6383-2014-0-9-24-31
Views:
290
Email this article 