# Estimating discount factors for public and private goods and testing competing discounting hypotheses

- 611 Downloads
- 5 Citations

## Abstract

The observation of declining discount rates in experimental settings has led many to promote hyperbolic discounting over standard exponential discounting as the preferred descriptive model of intertemporal choice. I develop a new framework, consistent with the random utility model, which directly models the intertemporal utility function and produces explicit maximum likelihood estimates of discounting parameters. I apply this estimation method to a stated-preference survey of river basin cleanup options and revealed-preference lottery payment choices. Formal statistical tests fail to find evidence in support of hyperbolic or quasi-hyperbolic discounting. Annual discount rates range from ten to fourteen percent across the data sets and empirical specifications.

## Keywords

Discounting Hyperbolic Random utility Intertemporal choice## JEL Classifications

D90 Q25 Q53 H43## Notes

### Acknowledgments

I thank Nicholas Flores for helpful comments concerning the survey design and data collection, for allowing me to borrow liberally from his MRB description, and for guidance throughout my dissertation process. I thank Randy Walsh for helpful comments at the inception of this research. I thank two anonymous reviewers for multiple insightful comments that greatly enhanced the quality of this paper. Finally, I thank participants at the 2008 AERE Sessions at the Summer Meeting of the AAEA and at the 10th Occasional Workshop on Environmental and Resource Economics at UC Santa Barbara.

## References

- Alberini, A., & Chiabai, A. (2007). Discount rates in risk versus money and money versus money tradeoffs.
*Risk Analysis, 27*(2), 483–498. M3: doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00899.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Andersen, S., Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., Rutstrom, E.E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences.
*Econometrica, 76*(3), 583–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2010a). Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Andreoni, J., & Sprenger, C. (2010b). Risk preferences are not time preferences: discounted expected utility with a disproportionate preference for certainty. Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Bosworth, R., Cameron, T.A., DeShazo, J.R. (2006).
*Preferences for preventative public health policies with jointly estimated rates of time preference*. Working paper.Google Scholar - Cairns, J., & van der Pol, M. (1997). Saving future lives. A comparison of three discounting models.
*Health Economics, 6*(4), 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cairns, J., & van der Pol, M. (2000). Valuing future private and social benefits: the discounted utility model versus hyperbolic discounting models.
*Journal of Economic Psychology, 21*(2), 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cameron, T.A., & Gerdes, G.R. (2003). Eliciting individual-specific discount rates. Working Paper.Google Scholar
- Clotfelter, C.T., Cook, P.J., Edell, J.A., Moore, M. (1999). State lotteries at the turn of the century: report to the national gambling impact study commission. Available online: http://www3.nd.edu/~jstiver/FIN360/lottery.pdf.
- Coller, M., & Williams, M.B. (1999). Eliciting individual discount rates.
*Experimental Economics, 2*(2), 107–127.Google Scholar - DeShazo, J.R., & Fermo, G. (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency.
*Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44*(1), 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: a critical review.
*Journal of Economic Literature, 40*(2), 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Harrison, G.W., Lau, M.I., Williams, M.B. (2002). Estimating individual discount rates in Denmark: a field experiment.
*American Economic Review, 92*(5), 1606–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Harvey, C.M. (1986). Value functions for infinite-period planning.
*Management Science, 32*(9), 1123–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Herrnstein, R. (1981). Self-control as response strength. In C. M. Bradshaw, E. Szabadi, C. F. Lowe (Eds.),
*Quantification of steady-state operant behavior*(pp. 3–20). New York: Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar - Horowitz, J.K., & Carson, R.T. (1990). Discounting statistical lives.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 3*(4), 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs.
*Journal of Marketing Research, 33*(3), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Johannesson, M., & Johansson, P.-O. (1997a). Quality of life and the WTP for an increased life expectancy at an advanced age.
*Journal of Public Economics, 65*(2), 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Johannesson, M., & Johansson, P.-O. (1997b). The value of life extension and the marginal rate of time preference: a pilot study.
*Applied Economics Letters, 4*, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Keller, L.R., & Strazzera, E. (2002). Examining predictive accuracy among discounting models.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24*(2), 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kirby, K.N., & Marakovic, N.N. (1995). Modeling myopic decisions: evidence for hyperbolic delay-discounting within subjects and amounts.
*Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64*(1), 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting.
*Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112*(2), 443–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lee, L.-F. (1999). Statistical inference with simulated likelihood functions.
*Econometric Theory, 15*(3), 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: evidence and an interpretation.
*Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107*(2), 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mathworks, T. (2006). Matlab.Google Scholar
- Mazur, J.E. (1987). An adjustment procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In M. L. Commons, J. E. Mazur, J. A. Nevin, H. Rachlin (Eds.),
*Quantitative analysis of behaviour: the effect of delay and intervening events on reinforcement value*. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Minnesota River Basin Data Center (2007). Minnesota river basin data center. Available at http://mrbdc.mnsu.edu/. Accessed 15 Nov 2007.
- Phelps, E.S., & Pollak, R.A. (1968). On second-best national saving and game-equilibrium growth.
*The Review of Economic Studies, 35*(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Read, D. (2001). Is time-discounting hyperbolic or subadditive?
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23*(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Samuelson, P.A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility.
*The Review of Economic Studies, 4*(2), 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Slonim, R., Carlson, J., Bettinger, E. (2007). Possession and discounting behavior.
*Economics Letters, 97*(3), 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thaler, R. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency.
*Economics Letters, 8*(3), 201–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Train, K.E. (2003).
*Discrete choice methods with simulation*. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - United States Census Bureau (2007). American factfinder: 2007 American community survey 3-year estimates.Google Scholar
- University of Houston Center for Public Policy (2007). Demographic survey of Texas lottery players 2007. Available at http://www.uh.edu/hcpp/txlottery.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2010.
- University of Houston Center for Public Policy (2008). Demographic survey of Texas lottery players 2008. Available at http://www.uh.edu/hcpp/txlottery2008.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2010.
- van der Pol, M., & Cairns, J. (2001). Estimating time preferences for health using discrete choice experiments.
*Social Science and Medicine, 52*(9), 1459–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Viscusi, W.K., Huber, J., Bell, J. (2008). Estimating discount rates for environmental quality from utility-based choice experiments.
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37*(2–3), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Warner, J.T., & Pleeter, S. (2001). The personal discount rate: evidence from military downsizing programs.
*American Economic Review, 91*(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar