Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:23:25.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental Methods in Agricultural and Resource Economics: How Useful are They?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Ann Fisher ,
William J. Wheeler  and
Rami Zwick
Ann Fisher
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University
William J. Wheeler
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University
Rami Zwick
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Abstract

Experimental economics has the potential to fill some of the gaps in the economist's tool kit. This article describes experimental economics, its advantages and disadvantages, and why this tool might be a good choice in some situations. The article summarizes the history of its use by agricultural and resource economists. An illustrative example compares laboratory experiment data with survey data.

Type
Invited Presentation
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 103 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beilock, R., Garrod, P., and Miklius, W. “Freight Charge Variations in Truck Transport Markets: Price Discrimination or Competitive Pricing?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68, 2 (1986): 226–36.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. and Smith, B. “The Estimation of Indifference Maps by Expected Utility Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67, 4 (1985): 833–38.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J.C. and Stoll, J.R. “An Analysis of Information Overload for Survey Design Research.” Leisure Sciences 12 (1990): 265–80.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J.C. and Stoll, J.R. “Application Experimental Economics Concepts and Precepts to CVM Field Survey Procedures.” Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 14, 1 (1989): 98–109.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, J.C., Stoll, J.R. and Randall, A. “Information Effects in Contingent Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 3 (1989): 685–91.Google Scholar
Binmore, K., Shaked, A. and Sutton, J. “An Outside Option Experiment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 104 (1989): 753–70.Google Scholar
Binmore, K., Morgan, P., Shaked, A., and Sutton, J. “Do People Exploit Their Bargaining Power? An Experimental Study.” Games and Economic Behavior 3 (1991): 295–322.Google Scholar
Brookshire, D.S. and Coursey, D.L. “Measuring the Value of a Public Good: An Empirical Comparison of Elicitation Procedures.” American Economic Review 77, 4 (1987): 554–66.Google Scholar
Brookshire, D.S., Coursey, D.L. and Schulze, W.D. “The External Validity of Experimental Economics Techniques: Analysis of Demand Behavior.” Economic Inquiry 25 (1987): 239–50.Google Scholar
Buccola, S.J. “Pricing Efficiency in Centralized and Noncen-tralized Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67, 3 (1985): 583–90.Google Scholar
Coursey, D.L. “Markets and the Measurement of Value.” Public Choice 55 (1987): 291–97.Google Scholar
Coursey, D.L., Hovis, J.L. and Schulze, W.D. “The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 102 (1987): 679–89.Google Scholar
Coursey, D.L. and Schulze, W.D. “The Application of Laboratory Experimental Economics to the Contingent Valuation of Public Goods.” Public Choice 49 (1986): 47–68.Google Scholar
Coursey, D.L. and Smith, V.L. “Experimental Tests of an Allocation Mechanism for Private, Public, or Externality Goods.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 86, 4 (1984): 468–84.Google Scholar
Davis, D.D. and Holt, C.A. Experimental Economics, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debertin, D.L. and Pagoulatos, A. “Research in Agricultural Economics 1919-1990: Seventy-two Years of Change.” Review of Agricultural Economics 4, 1 (1992): 1–22.Google Scholar
Fisher, Ann, McClelland, Gary H., and Schulze, William D. “Measures of Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Accept: Evidence, Explanations, and Potential Reconciliation.” In Amenity Resource Valuation: Integrating Economics with Other Disciplines ed. Peterson, George L., Driver, B.L., and Gregory, Robin, 127–34. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., 1988.Google Scholar
Forster, D.L. and Roberts, C.A. “Oral and Electronic Double Auction Markets: An Experimental Comparison.” North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 9, 1 (1987): 99–105.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. and Furby, L. “Auctions, Experiments, and Contingent Valuation.” Public Choice 55 (1987): 273–89.Google Scholar
Hanemann, W.M., “Willingness To Pay and Willingness to Accept: How Much Can They Differ?” American Economic Review 81, 3 (1991): 635–47.Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W. and Morgan, P.B. “Search Intensity in Experiments.” Economic Journal 100 (1990): 478–86.Google Scholar
Hey, J.D. Experiments in Economics, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1991.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E. and Spitzer, M.L. “The Coase Theorem: Some Experimental Tests.” Journal of Law and Economics 25 (1982): 73–98.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E. and Spitzer, M.L. “Experimental Law and Economics: An Introduction.” Columbia Law Review 85 (1985): 991–1036.Google Scholar
Kachelmeier, S.J., Limberg, S.T. and Schadewald, M.S. “Fairness in Markets: A Laboratory Investigation.” Journal of Economic Psychology, 12 (1991): 447–64.Google Scholar
Kagel, J.H. “Economics According to the Rats (and Pigeons Too).” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, ed. Roth, Alvin E., 155–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Knetsch, J.L. “Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22, 1 (1992): 57–70.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. “Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics,” Journal of Business 59, 4 (1986): 285–300.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem.” Journal of Political Economy 98, 6 (1990): 1325–48.Google Scholar
Kealy, M.J., Dovidio, J.F. and Rockel, M.L. “Accuracy in Valuation is a Matter of Degree” Land Economics 64, 2 (1988): 158–71.Google Scholar
Kealy, M.J., Montgomery, M. and Dovidio, J.F. “Reliability and Predictive Value of Contingent Values: Does the Nature of the Good Matter?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19, 3 (1990): 244–63.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. A Guide to Econometrics. 3rd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Knetsch, J.L. and Sinden, J.A. “Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 99 (1984): 507–21.Google Scholar
Knetsch, J.L. and Sinden, J.A. “The Persistence of Evaluation Disparities.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 102 (1987): 691–95.Google Scholar
Knez, P., Smith, V. and Williams, A. “Individual Rationality, Market Equilibrium, and Value Estimation.” American Economic Review, 75 (1985): 397–402.Google Scholar
Leontief, W. “Academic Economics.” Science 217 (1982): 104–7.Google Scholar
Marwell, G. and Ames, R.E. “Economists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else? Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods, IV.” Journal of Public Economics 15 (1981): 295–310.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D.N. “Agon and Ag Ec: Styles of Persuasion in Agricultural Economics.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 5 (1990): 1124–30.Google Scholar
Menkhaus, D.J., Borden, G.W., Whipple, G.D., Hoffman, E. and Field, R.A. “An Empirical Application of Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 17, 1 (1992): 44–55.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and Carson, Richard T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 1989.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. “Theory versus Empiricism in Academic Economics: Update and Comparisons.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 2, 4 (1988): 159–64.Google Scholar
Nelson, R.G. and Bessler, D.A. “Subjective Probabilities and Scoring Rules.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 2 (1989): 363–69.Google Scholar
Norton, R.D. and Patrick, R.H. “A Note on Prudencio's Experimental Tests of the Coase Propositions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 12, 1 (1985): 96–100.Google Scholar
Palfrey, T. and Porter, R. “Guidelines for Submission of Manuscripts on Experimental Economics.” Econometrica 59, 4 (1991): 1197–98.Google Scholar
Plott, C.R. “Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 20 (1982): 1485–1527.Google Scholar
Plott, C.R. “Dimensions of Parallelism: Some Policy Applications of Experimental Methods.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, ed. Roth, Alvin E., 193–219. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Plott, C.R. “Will Economics Become an Experimental Science?” Southern Economics Journal, 57 (1991): 901–19.Google Scholar
Prince, R., McKee, M., Ben-David, S. and Bagnoli, M. “Improving the Contingent Valuation Method: Implementing the Contribution Game.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23, 1 (1992): 78–90.Google Scholar
Randall, A. and Stoll, J.R. “Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space.” American Economic Review 70, 3 (1980): 449–55.Google Scholar
Rapoport, A., Weg, E. and Felsenthal, D.S. “Effects of Fixed Costs in Two-Person Sequential Bargaining.” Theory and Decision 28 (1990): 47–71.Google Scholar
Rhodus, W.T., Baldwin, E.D. and Henderson, D.R. “Pricing Accuracy and Efficiency in a Pilot Electronic Hog Market.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 4 (1989): 874–82.Google Scholar
Roth, A.E. “Introduction and Overview.” In Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: Six Points of View, ed. Roth, Alvin E., 1–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987a.Google Scholar
Roth, A.E. “Laboratory Experimentation in Economics.” In Advances in Economic Theory 1985 (Symposia of the 5th World Congress of the Econometric Society), ed. Bewley, T., 269–299. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987b.Google Scholar
Roth, A.E. “Laboratory Experimentation in Economics: A Methodological Overview.” Economic Journal 98 (1988): 974–1031.Google Scholar
Ruppel, F.J. and Fuller, S.W. “Information Aspects and Determinants of Information Selection: An Experimental Approach.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 17, 1 (1992): 150–61.Google Scholar
Shin, S.Y., Kliebenstein, J., Hays, D.J. and Shogren, J.F. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Safer Food Products.” Journal of Food Safety 13 (1992): 51–9.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F. “Experimental Markets and Environmental Policy.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 22, 2 (1993): 117–129.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F. “Fairness in Bargaining Requires a Context: An Experimental Examination of Loyalty.” Economics Letters 31 (1989): 319–23.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F. and Nowell, C. “Economics and Ecology: A Comparison of Experimental Methodologies and Philosophies,” Ecological Economics 5 (1992): 101–26.Google Scholar
Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J. and Kliebenstein, J.B. “Resolving Differences in Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay.” Forthcoming in American Economic Review (1993).Google Scholar
Smith, V.L. “Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory.” American Economic Review 66 (1976): 274–9.Google Scholar
Smith, V.L. “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review 72 (1982): 923–55.Google Scholar
Smith, V.L. “Experimental Methods in Economics.” In The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, ed. Eatwell, John, Milgate, Murray, and Newman, Peter, 241–249. London: Macmillan Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Smith, V.L. “Theory, Experiment, and Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 3 (1989): 151–69.Google Scholar
Smith, V.L. Papers in Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Smith, V.L. and Williams, A.W., “Experimental Market Economics,” Scientific American, (December 1992): 116–21.Google Scholar
Stover, R.D., Teas, K. and Gardner, R.G. “Agricultural Lending Decisions: A Multiattribute Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67, 3 (1985): 513–20.Google Scholar
Thaler, R.H. “The Ultimatum Game.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 2, 4 (1988): 195–206.Google Scholar
Walker, J.M. and Gardner, R. “Probabilistic Destruction of Common-Pool Resources: Experimental Evidence.” Economic Journal 102 (1992): 1149–61.Google Scholar
Walker, J.M., Gardner, R. and Ostrom, E. “Rent Dissipation in a Limited Access Common-Pool Resource: Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 19, 3 (1990): 203–11.Google Scholar
Weg, E., and Zwick, R. “On the Robustness of Perfect Equilibrium in Fixed Cost Sequential Bargaining Under Isomorphic Transformation.” Economics Letters 36 (1991): 21–4.Google Scholar
Willig, R.D. “Consumer's Surplus Without Apology.” American Economic Review 66, 4 (1976): 589–97.Google Scholar
Zwick, R. and Weg, E. “Experimental Study of Buyer-Seller Negotiation with Outside Options and Bargaining Costs,” Working Paper. Marketing Department, The Pennsylvania State University, 1993.Google Scholar