Benefit-Cost in a Benevolent Society

American Economic Review (Impact Factor: 2.69). 03/2006; 96(1):339-351. DOI: 10.1257/000282806776157623
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT How should benefit-cost analysis account for the value that benevolent individuals place on others' enjoyment of public goods? When adding up the benefits to be compared with costs, should we sum the private valuations, the altruistic valuations, or something else? This paper argues that private valuations are appropriate if concern for the well-being of others respects their private preferences. The discussion has implications for family decision-making, welfare economics, and the design of applied contingent valuation studies.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We test for social preferences over a commodity in an artefactual field experiment using the random price voting mechanism. Subjects are university staff members, and the commodity is water “contaminated” by a sterilized cockroach. Our results suggest that social preferences exist with respect to commodities and “bads”, supporting a more general utility framework for social preferences. Our empirical test allows for the coexistence of three social‐preference models; our results support the models of Fehr and Schmidt (1999) and Charness and Rabin (2002), but not the model of Bolton and Ockenfels (2000). Also, we find that incorporating social preferences improves the efficiency of majority‐rules voting.
    Scandinavian Journal of Economics 01/2013; 115(1). DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9442.2012.01745.x · 0.51 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper considers the role of social networks in the non-market valuation of public goods. In the model individuals derive utility from both their own direct enjoyment of the public good as well as from the enjoyment of those in their network. We find that network structure almost always matters, both for utility and for valuation. The network increases aggregate valuation when it assigns higher importance, that is, stronger connections, to individuals with higher private values for the public good. The model provides a theoretical foundation for the idea of opinion leaders who have disproportionate influence over their communities. Specifically, opinion leaders are individuals assigned high importance by the network, and projects favored by opinion leaders tend to be favored by the network as a whole. The model can also guide future empirical studies by enabling a more structural approach to non-market valuation in a socially-connected group.
    Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 03/2014; 67(2):155-170. DOI:10.1016/j.jeem.2013.11.005 · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In both experimental and natural settings incentives sometimes under-perform, generating smaller eects on the targeted behaviors than would be predicted for entirely self-regarding agents. A parsimonious explanation is that incentives that appeal to payo maximizing mo- tives may crowd out non-economic motives such as altruism, reciprocity, intrinsic motivation and other social preferences, leading to disappointing and sometimes even counter-productive incentive eects. Evidence from behavioral experiments indicates that crowding may take two forms: categorical (the eect on preferences depends only on the presence or absence of the incentive) or marginal (the eect depends on the extent of the incentive). We extend an earlier contribution to this journal (Bowles and Hwang, 2008) providing a more general framework for the study of optimal incentives when crowding out results from framing and information eects including (with evidence for ) categorical crowding, and as a result, an expanded range of situations for which the sophisticated planner will make greater use of incentives when incentives crowd out social preferences than when motivational crowding is absent.
    Journal of Public Economic Theory 01/2011; 16(5). DOI:10.1111/jpet.12077 · 0.37 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jan 7, 2015