This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Journal of Economic Perspectives
  4. Fall 1994
  5. Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?

Journal of Economic Perspectives

ISSN 0895-3309 (Print) | ISSN 1944-7965 (Online)

Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?

  • Peter A. Diamond
  • Jerry A. Hausman
Journal of Economic Perspectives
vol. 8, no. 4, Fall 1994
(pp. 45–64)
Download Full Text PDF
(Complimentary)

Abstract

Without market outcomes for comparison, internal consistency tests, particularly adding-up tests, are needed for credibility. When tested, contingent valuation has failed. Proponents find surveys tested poorly done. To the authors' knowledge, no survey has passed these tests. The 'embedding effect' is the similarity of willingness-to-pay responses that theory suggests (and sometimes requires) be different. This problem has long been recognized but not solved. The authors conclude that current methods are not suitable for damage assessment or benefit-cost analysis. They believe the problems come from an absence of preferences, not a flaw in survey methodology, making improvement unlikely.

Citation

Diamond, Peter A., and Jerry A. Hausman. 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (4): 45–64. DOI: 10.1257/jep.8.4.45

JEL Classification

  • Q26 Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
There are no comments for this article.
Login to Comment