Citizen Preferences and BCA: A Model of Willingness-to-Pay behind a Veil of Ignorance

被引:1
作者
Beeson, Morgan [1 ]
Chilton, Susan [1 ]
Metcalf, Hugh [1 ]
Nielsen, Jytte Seested [1 ]
机构
[1] Newcastle Univ, Business Sch, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England
关键词
altruism; distributive justice; veil of ignorance; willingness-to-pay; D61; D63; D64; H41; BENEFIT-COST; INTERPERSONAL COMPARISONS; PATERNALISTIC ALTRUISM; VALUATION; WELFARE; ECONOMICS; CONSUMERS;
D O I
10.1017/bca.2024.42
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Public sector allocative decisions should reflect, as far as possible, the preferences of those affected by the decisions. Conventional benefit-cost analysis (BCA) will simply aggregate individuals' private willingness-to-pay (WTP) over all affected individuals to estimate the total benefits of a policy that delivers a public good. Given the nature of a public good, it is not unreasonable to consider that an individual may have altruistic preferences over the consumption of the public good by others. In this paper, we set out the theoretical underpinnings for a new citizen-based WTP, informed by political philosophy. Our model extends the standard social utility model (Bergstrom, 2006) of WTP for a public good when individuals are altruists by incorporating a Veil of Ignorance (VoI; Harsanyi, 1955). Our findings show that our WTP (Citizen) correctly includes altruistic as well as distributional preferences of individuals in society into WTP for use in a BCA. When WTP (Citizen) are aggregated for use in a BCA, equal weight is given to each individual's preference and the BCA will correctly identify potentially Pareto-improving projects in a consistent manner.
引用
收藏
页码:183 / 205
页数:23
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Benefit-Cost Analysis and Distributional Weights: An Overview [J].
Adler, Matthew D. .
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND POLICY, 2016, 10 (02) :264-285
[2]   Can a "veil of ignorance' reduce the impact of distortionary taxation on public good valuations? [J].
Beeson, Morgan ;
Chilton, Susan ;
Jones-Lee, Michael ;
Metcalf, Hugh ;
Nielsen, Jytte Seested .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2019, 58 (2-3) :245-262
[3]  
Bergstrom T., 1982, VALUE LIFE SAFETY P, P3
[4]   Benefit-cost in a benevolent society [J].
Bergstrom, TC .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2006, 96 (01) :339-351
[5]   Respondents to contingent valuation surveys: Consumers or citizens? [J].
Blamey, R ;
Common, M ;
Quiggin, J .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1995, 39 (03) :263-288
[6]  
Boadway Robin., 2016, OXFORD HDB WELL BEIN, DOI [10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199325818.013.2, DOI 10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199325818.013.2]
[7]   Distributional Preferences and the Incidence of Costs and Benefits in Climate Change Policy [J].
Cai, Beilei ;
Cameron, Trudy Ann ;
Gerdes, Geoffrey R. .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2010, 46 (04) :429-458
[8]   The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey [J].
Curtis, JA ;
McConnell, KE .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2002, 46 (01) :69-83
[9]   Preferences over Income Distributions Experimental Evidence [J].
Engelmann, Dirk ;
Strobel, Martin .
PUBLIC FINANCE REVIEW, 2007, 35 (02) :285-310
[10]   Non-paternalistic altruism and welfare economics [J].
Flores, NE .
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 2002, 83 (02) :293-305