The price proxy plays a distinct role in discrete choice experiments (DCEs) since the inclusion of a price proxy makes it possible to indirectly obtain willingness to pay (WTP) estimates for the good in its entirety or for a change in an attribute level. Marginal rates of substitution (MRS) between the price proxy and other programme attributes constitute these “part-worth” values.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ben-Akiva, M. and Lerman, S. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bennett, J. and Blamey, R.K. 2001. The Choice Modelling Approach in Environmental Valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bradley, M. 1991. User’s manual for SPEED version 2.1 stated preference experiment editor and designer. The Hague: Hague Consulting Group.
Brookshire, D.S., Randall, A. and Stoll, J.R. 1980. Valuing increments and decrements in natural resource service flows. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol 62, 478–488.
Cairns, J., van der Pol., M. and Lloyd, A. 2002. Decision making heuristics in and the elicitation of preferences: being fast and frugal about the future. Health Economics, vol 11 (7), 655–658.
Cameron, T.A. and James, M. 1987. Efficient estimation methods for closed ended contingent valuation surveys. Review of Economics and Statistics, vol 69, 269–276.
Deaton, A. and Mullbauer, J. 1989. Economics and Consumer Behaviour. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Dolan, P., Olsen, J.A. and Menzel, P., et al. 2003. An inquiry into the different perspectives that can be used when eliciting preferences in health. Health Economics, vol 12 (7), 545–551.
Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric Analysis. 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Greenley, D.A., Walsh, R.G. and Young, R.A. 1981. Option value: empirical evidence from a case study of recreation and water quality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol 96 (4), 657–673.
Gyrd-Hansen, D. and Slothuus, U. 2002. The Citizen’s preferences for financing public health care. A Danish survey. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, vol 2 (1), 25–36.
Hanemann, W.M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol 66 (3), 332–341.
Hanemann, W.M. and Kanninen, B. 1998. The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data, Working Paper 798, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Policy, University of California, Berkeley.
Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives–Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.
Kristrom, B. 1990. A non-parametric approach to the estimation of welfare measures in discrete response valuation studies. Land Economics, vol 66, 135–139.
Lloyd, A.J. 2003. Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate? Health Economics, vol 12, 393–402.
Louviere, J., Hensher, D.A. and Swait, J. 2000. Stated Choice Methods, Analysis and Application, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McIntosh, E. and Ryan, M. 2002. Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: implications of discontinuous preferences. Journal of Economic Psychology, vol 23, 376–382.
Nakaruma, Y. 1997. Lexicographic additivity for multi-attribute preferences on finite sets. Theory and Decision, vol 42 (1), 1–19.
Neumann, P.J. and Johannesson, M. 1994. The willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilisation: a pilot study using contingent valuation. Medical Care, vol 32 (7), 686–699.
Payne, J. et al. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Posavac, S. 1998. Strategic overbidding in contingent valuation: stated economic value of public goods varies according to consumers’ expectation of funding source. Journal of Economic Psychology, vol 19, 205–214.
Ratcliffe, J. 2000. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, vol 16, 270–275.
Ryan, M. and Gerard, K. 2003. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, vol 2 (1), 55–64.
Ryan, M. and San Miguel, F. 2002. Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. Health Economics, vol 12, 295–307.
Ryan, M. and Skåtun, D. 2004. Modelling non-demanders in choice experiments. Health Economics, vol 13 (4), 397–402.
Scott, A. 2002. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. Journal of Economic Psychology, vol 23 (3), 383–398.
Slothuus Skjoldborg, U. and Gyrd-Hansen, D. 2003. Conjoint analysis: the cost variable: an Achilles’ heel? Health Economics, vol 12 (6), 479–491.
Slovic, P. 1995. The construction of preference. Journal of American Psychology, vol 50 (5), 364–371.
Train, K.E. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gyrd-Hansen, D., Skjoldborg, U.S. (2008). The Price Proxy in Discrete Choice Experiments: Issues of Relevance for Future Research. In: Ryan, M., Gerard, K., Amaya-Amaya, M. (eds) Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Value Health and Health Care. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5753-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5753-3_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4082-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5753-3
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)