Skip to main content
Log in

Public-good valuation and intra-family allocation

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I derive values of marginal changes in a public good for two-person households, measured alternatively by household member i’s willingness to pay (WTP) for the good on behalf of the household, WTP i (H), or by the sum of individual WTP values across family members, WTP(C). Households are assumed to allocate their resources in efficient Nash bargains over private and common household goods. WTP i (H) is then defined by trade-offs between the public good and the household good, and WTP(C) by trade-offs of between the public good and private goods. WTP i (H) is found to be higher (lower) than WTP(C) when member i has a relatively high (low) marginal valuation of the public good, but tends on average to equal WTP(C). As a consequence, individuals tend to represent households correctly on average when questioned about the household’s WTP for a public good, even when they are purely selfish and answer truthfully. Adding all members’ WTP answers on behalf of the household then leads to double counting. Pure and paternalistic altruism (the latter attached to consumption of the public good) move each member’s WTP on behalf of the household closer to the true sum of individual WTP, but only paternalistic altruism raises this sum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson S, Baland JM (2002) The economics of Roscas and intrahousehold resource allocation. Q J Econ 117:963–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aura S (2002) Does the balance of power within a family matter? The case of the retirement equity act. CESifo working paper no. 734

  • Bateman I, Munro A (2003) Non-cooperative decision–making and measures of household surplus. Working paper, University of East Anglia

  • Becker GS (1991) A treatise on the family, 2nd edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom TC (1997) A survey of theories of the family. In: Rosenzweig M, Stark O (eds) Handbook of population and family economics, vol 1A. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 21–79

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom TC (2003) Benefit cost analysis and the entanglements of love. Working paper, University of California, Santa Barbara

  • Boyle KJ (2003) Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer, Dordrect, pp 110–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning M, Chiappori PA (1998) Efficient intra-household allocations: a general characterization and empirical test. Econometrica 66:1241–1278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Res Econ 19:173–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Z, Wooley F (2001) A cournot-nash model of family decision making. Econ J 111:722–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson PO (1994) Altruism and the value of statistical life: empirical implications. J Health Econ 13:111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Lee MW (1992) Paternalistic altruism and the value of statistical life. Econ J 102:0–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg S, Pollak RA (1993) Separate spheres bargaining and the marriage market. J Polit Econ 101:988–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg S, Pollak RA (1997) Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom child benefit. J Hum Res 32:463–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg S, Pollak RA (2003) Efficiency in marriage. Rev Econ Household 1:153–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manser M, Brown M (1980) Marriage and household decision theory—a bargaining analysis. Int Econ Rev 21:21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy M, Horney M (1981) Nash-bargained decisions: toward a generalization of the theory of demand. Int Econ Rev 22:333–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell AC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC Resources For the Future

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro A (2005) Household willingess to pay equals individual willingness to pay if and only if the household income pools. Econ Lett 88:227–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthoo A (1999) Bargaining theory with applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Phipps SA, Burton PS (1998) What’s mine is yours? The influence of male and female incomes on patterns of household expenditures. Economica 65:599–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin J (1998) Individual and household willingness to pay for public goods. Am J Agric Econ 80:58–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, van Houtven G (2004) Recovering Hicksian consumer surplus within a collective model: Hausman’s method for the household. Environ Res Econ 28:153–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon Strand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Strand, J. Public-good valuation and intra-family allocation. Environ Resource Econ 38, 527–543 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9098-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9098-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation