Divergence in alternative Hicksian welfare measures: the case of revealed preference for public amenities

This paper investigates the divergence between the two Hicksian welfare measures of non-traded amenity improvement associated with housing. First, the Hicksian surplus measures for amenity changes are analytically developed based on explicit specification of utility structures. A hedonic two-stage approach is then applied to empirically show that, for quantity changes, in contrast to hypothetical markets, divergence in real market is small. The paper also analytically develops expressions for the income and substitution effects and empirically shows that for a given income effect, the greater the substitution effect the smaller the divergence between the two measures. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Mark Thayer,et al.  The Robustness of Hedonic Price Estimation: Urban Air Quality , 1988 .

[2]  R. Ohsfeldt,et al.  Estimating the Demand for Heterogeneous Goods , 1985 .

[3]  R. Mendelsohn,et al.  The choice of functional forms for hedonic price equations: Comment , 1985 .

[4]  Scott E. Atkinson,et al.  A Bayesian approach to assessing the robustness of hedonic property value studies , 1987 .

[5]  Robert Mendelsohn,et al.  Identifying Structural Equations with Single Market Data , 1985 .

[6]  M. Cropper,et al.  On the Choice of Functional Form for Hedonic Price Functions , 1988 .

[7]  Robert D. Willig,et al.  Consumer's Surplus Without Apology , 1976 .

[8]  Bryan Ellickson,et al.  An alternative test of the hedonic theory of housing markets , 1981 .

[9]  John R. Stoll,et al.  Consumer's Surplus in Commodity Space , 1980 .

[10]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  Modelling the Choice of Residential Location , 1977 .

[11]  Sudip Chattopadhyay.  Estimating the Demand for Air Quality: New Evidence Based on the Chicago Housing Market , 1999 .

[12]  R. Halvorsen,et al.  Choice of functional form for hedonic price equations , 1981 .

[13]  William D. Schulze,et al.  The Disparity Between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay Measures of Value , 1987 .

[14]  James N. Brown,et al.  On the Estimation of Structural Hedonic Price Models , 1982 .

[15]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Willingness To Pay and Willingness To Accept: How Much Can They Differ? Comment , 2003 .

[16]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  Market segmentation and valuing amenities with hedonic models: The case of hazardous waste sites☆ , 1990 .

[17]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models , 1999, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[18]  S. Rosen.  Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition , 1974, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  Timothy J. Bartik,et al.  The Estimation of Demand Parameters in Hedonic Price Models , 1987, Journal of Political Economy.

[20]  J. Knetsch,et al.  Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value , 1984 .

[21]  R. Lankford.  Measuring welfare changes in settings with imposed quantities , 1988 .

[22]  Sudip Chattopadhyay.  An Empirical Investigation into the Performance of Ellickson's Random Bidding Model, with an Application to Air Quality Valuation , 1998 .

[23]  Timothy J. Bartik,et al.  Measuring the Benefits of Amenity Improvements in Hedonic Price Models , 1988 .

[24]  J. Shogren,et al.  Resolving Differences in Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept , 1997 .

[25]  Sudip Chattopadhyay,et al.  The effectiveness of McFaddens’s nested logit model in valuing amenity improvement , 2000 .

[26]  Dennis Epple,et al.  Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Estimating Demand and Supply Functions for Differentiated Products , 1987, Journal of Political Economy.