Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T07:43:35.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gain and Loss Domains and the Choice of Welfare Measure of Positive and Negative Changes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Jack L. Knetsch ,
Yohanes E. Riyanto  and
Jichuan Zong
Jack L. Knetsch
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University, Canada
Yohanes E. Riyanto
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Jichuan Zong
Affiliation:
Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, China
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Mounting evidence continues to suggest that people value changes in terms of a neutral reference state and that those in the domain of losses are commonly valued far more than those in the gains. Consequently, both negative and positive changes in the domain of losses, including mitigation of losses such as restoring environmental quality and reducing accident rates, may be more accurately valued with the minimum acceptable-compensation (WTA) measure, those in the domain of gains are more accurate with the maximum willingness-to-pay (WTP) measure. Current practice, that assumes equivalence and that all positive changes are considered as gains, is therefore likely to often seriously mislead.

Keywords

gain and loss domainsvalue disparityreference statewillingness-to-paywillingness-to-acceptwelfare measurement
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , 17 December 2012 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2012

References

Chin, Anthony T. H., and Knetsch, Jack L. (in preparation), “Serious Biases in Valuations of Many Transport Projects: The Choice of Welfare Measure Matters”.Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert, and Ulen, Thomas (1997), Law and Economics, 2nd edn., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Helliwell, John F. (2006), “Well-Being, Social Capital, and Public Policy: What’s New?”, The Economic Journal, 116: C34–C45.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. M. (1941), “Consumer’s Surplus and the Compensation Variation”, Review of Economic Studies, 8: 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, John, and McConnell, Kenneth (2002), “A Review of WTA/WTP Studies”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44: 426–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachelmeier, Steven J., and Shehata, Mohd. (1992), “Estimating Risk Preferences Under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence From the People’s Republic of China”, American Economic Review, 82: 1120–1140.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel (2003), “A Perspective on Judgment and Choice”, American Psychologist, 58(9): 697–720.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, Canada: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk”, Econometrica, 47: 263–291.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos (1984), “Choices, Values, and Frames”, American Psychologist, 39: 341–350.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Knetsch, Jack L., and Thaler, Richard H. (1990), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem”, Journal of Political Economy, 98: 728–741.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Ritov, Ilana, and Schkade, David (1999), “Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19: 203–235.Google Scholar
Knetsch, Jack L., and Wong, Wei-Kang (2009), “The Endowment Effect and the Reference State: Evidence and Manipulations” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 71: 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koszegi, Botond, and Rabin, Matthew (2006), “A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121: 1133–1165.Google Scholar
Krupnick, Alan J., and Portney, Paul R. (1991), “Controlling Urban Air Pollution: A Benefit-Cost Assessment”, Science, 252 (5005, Apr. 26): 524–528.Google Scholar
List, John A. (2003), “Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118: 47–71.Google Scholar
Odean, Terrance (1998), “Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?”, The Journal of Finance, 53: 1775–1798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, Andrew J., and Powdthavee, Nattavudh (2008), “Does Happiness Adapt? A Longitudinal Study of Disability with Implications for Economists and Judges”, Journal of Public Economics, 92: 1061–1077.Google Scholar
Pearce, David (2002), The Role of ‘Property Rights’ in Determining Economic Values for Environmental Costs and Benefits, Report to the Environment Agency of Bristol.Google Scholar
Pinto-Prades, Jose Luis, Loomes, Graham, and Brey, Raul (2009), “Trying to Estimate a Monetary Value for the QALY”, Journal of Health Economics, 28: 553–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plott, Charles R., and Zeiler, Kathryn (2005), “The Willingness to Pay –Willingness to Accept Gap, the ‘Endowment Effect,’ Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations”, American Economic Review, 95: 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, Charles, and Zeiler, Kathryn (2007), “Asymmetries in Exchange Behaviour Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Prospect Theory”, American Economic Review, 97: 1449–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, Devin G., and Schweitzer, Maurice E. (2011), “Is Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes”, The American Economic Review, 101: 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putler, Daniel S. (1992), “Incorporating Reference Price Effects Into a Theory of Consumer Choice”, Marketing Science, 11: 287–309.Google Scholar
Rabin, Matthew (1998), “Psychology and Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, 36: 11–46.Google Scholar
Ruzzi, Luis I., and Ortuzar, Juan de Dios (2006), “Road Safety Valuation Under a Stated Choice Framework”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 40: 69–94.Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (2000), Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. Kip, Magat, W. A., and Huber, J. (1987), “An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuations of Multiple Health Risks”, Rand Journal of Economics, 18: 465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbe, Richard O. (2001), Economic Efficiency in Law and Economics, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Zhao, JinHua, and Kling, Catherine L. (2004), “Willingness to Pay, Compensating Variation, and the Cost of Commitment”, Economic Inquiry, 42: 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zong, Jichuan, and Knetsch, Jack L., (In Press), “Valuations of Changes in Risks: The Reference State and the Measures Matter”, Singapore Economic Review.Google Scholar