Labour as a utility measure reconsidered

Ahlheim, Michael; Frör, Oliver; Nguyen, Minh Duc; Rehl, Antonia; Siepmann, Ute; Pham, Van Dinh

Eingang zum Volltext

Ahlheim, Michael ; Frör, Oliver ; Nguyen, Minh Duc ; Rehl, Antonia ; Siepmann, Ute ; Pham, Van Dinh

Labour as a utility measure reconsidered

Bitte beziehen Sie sich beim Zitieren dieses Dokumentes immer auf folgende
URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:100-opus-13329
URL: http://opus.uni-hohenheim.de/volltexte/2017/1332/

pdf-Format:

Dokument 1.pdf (533 KB)

Gedruckte Ausgabe:

Print-on-Demand-Kopie

Dokument in Google Scholar suchen:

Social Media:

Export:

Abrufstatistik:

SWD-Schlagwörter:

Bewertung , Beitrag , Öffentliches Gut , Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse , Entwicklungsländer , Vietnam

Freie Schlagwörter (Englisch):

Contingent Valuation , Cost-benefit Analysis, Developing Countries , Public Expenditures , Vietnam , Willingness to work

Institut:

Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre

DDC-Sachgruppe:

Wirtschaft

Dokumentart:

ResearchPaper

Schriftenreihe:

Hohenheim discussion papers in business, economics and social sciences

Bandnummer:

2017,03

Sprache:

Englisch

Erstellungsjahr:

2017

Publikationsdatum:

06.03.2017

Lizenz:

Veröffentlichungsvertrag mit der Universitätsbibliothek Hohenheim

Kurzfassung auf Englisch:

In Stated Preference studies for the appraisal of environmental projects in poor countries or regions it often turns out that the stated willingness to pay of people for environmental improvements, which is used as measure of individual welfare changes, is very low. This is often interpreted as the result of extremely tight budget constraints, which make it impossible that people express their true appreciation of an environmental project in terms of their willingness to pay for it. Therefore, it is sometimes suggested to use labour contributions instead of money as a numeraire to measure utility in such studies. In this paper we show theoretically and empirically that this suggestion is not compatible with the principles of welfare theory because of several inconsistencies. We also illustrate the validity of our arguments empirically based on the results of a Contingent Valuation study conducted in a rural area in northern Vietnam.