Advertisement

Public Choice

, Volume 139, Issue 1–2, pp 227–240 | Cite as

How fair is pricing perceived to be? An empirical study

  • Charles RauxEmail author
  • Stéphanie Souche
  • Yves Croissant
Article

Abstract

The perceived fairness of different rules for allocating scarce resources is analysed in two cases: seats on a high speed train and parking spaces in a company car park. Attitudes toward allocation rules depend on context. They vary according to: the educational level of respondents; the type of “good”; and the exceptional or recurring nature of scarcity. Peak pricing, administrative and lottery rules are seen as the most unfair, together with queuing in some cases. The moral rule is considered to be the fairest one, except by more educated people who prefer the compensation rule.

Keywords

Fairness Attitudes Allocation rules Pricing Empirical survey Transport 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barzel, Y. (1974). A theory of rationing by waiting. Journal of Law and Economics, 17(1), 73–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L., & Alba, J. W. (2003). Consumer perceptions of (un)fairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 476–491. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brueckner, J. K. (2002). Airport congestion when carriers have market power. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1357–1375. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, J. S., & Moffitt, R. (1982). A computationally efficient quadrature procedure for the one-factor multinomial probit model. Econometrica, 50(3), 761–764. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Google Scholar
  7. Franciosi, R., Kujal, P., Michelitsch, R., Smith, V., & Deng, G. (1995). Fairness: effect on temporary and equilibrium prices in posted-offer markets. The Economic Journal, 105, 938–950. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1996). Fair siting procedures: an empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 353–376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frey, B. S., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1993). On the fairness of pricing—an empirical survey among the general population. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 20, 295–307. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frey, B. S., Oberholzer-Gee, F., & Eichenberger, R. (1996). The old lady visits your backyard: a tale of morals and markets. The Journal of Political Economy, 104(6), 1297–1313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glazer, A., & Lave, C. (1996). Regulation by prices and by command. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 9(2), 191–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hicks, J. (1939). The Foundations of welfare economics. Economic Journal, 49, 696–712. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kachelmeier, S. J., Limberg, S., & Schadewald, M. S. (1991). Fairness in markets: a laboratory investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12, 447–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., Knestsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741. Google Scholar
  16. Kaldor, N. (1939). Welfare propositions in economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Economic Journal, 49, 549–552. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kunreuther, H., & Easterling, D. (1996). The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15, 601–622. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCullagh, P. (1980). Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 42(2), 109–142. Google Scholar
  20. Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine/Atherton. Google Scholar
  21. Oberholzer-Gee, F. (2006). A market for time. Fairness and efficiency in waiting lines. Kyklos, 59(3), 427–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oberholzer-Gee, F., & Weck-Hannemann, H. (2002). Pricing road use: politico-economic and fairness considerations. Transportation Research Part D, 7, 357–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pareto, V. (1927). Manuel d’économie politique. Paris: Girard. Google Scholar
  24. Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare (4th ed.). London: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  25. Pigou, A. C. (1947). Economy progress in a stable environment. Economica, New Series, 14, 180–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raux, C., & Souche, S. (2004). The acceptability of urban road pricing: a theoretical analysis applied to experience in Lyon. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38(2), 191–216. Google Scholar
  27. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Sah, R. K. (1987). Queues, rations, and market: comparisons of outcomes for poor and the rich. The American Economic Review, 77(1), 69–77. Google Scholar
  29. Samuelson, P.-A. (1947). Harvard economic studies : Vol. LXXX. Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, G. A., Tsui, K. K. K., & Zhu, L. (2003). Lottery or waiting-line auctions? Journal of Publics Economics, 87(5), 1313–1334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thalmann, P. (2004). The public acceptance of green taxes: 2 million voters express their opinion. Public Choice, 119, 179–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vaidyanathan, R., & Aggarwal, P. (2003). Who is the fairest of them all? An attributional approach to price fairness perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 56, 453–463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vickrey, W. (1963). Pricing in urban and suburban transport. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 53(2), 452–465. Google Scholar
  34. Weitzman, M. L. (1977). Is the price system or rationing more effective in getting a commodity to those who need it most? Bell Journal of Economics, 8, 517–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Young, H. P. (1995). Equity. In theory and practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  36. Zajac, E. E. (1995). Political economy of fairness. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Raux
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stéphanie Souche
    • 1
  • Yves Croissant
    • 1
  1. 1.LET, Transport Economics LaboratoryCNRS, Université de Lyon, ENTPELyonFrance

Personalised recommendations