A game of two halves?

Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method

Paul McNamee, Laura Ternent, Adjima Gbangou, David Newlands

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The bidding game (BG) method of contingent valuation is one way to increase the precision of willingness to pay (WTP) estimates relative to the single dichotomous choice approach. However, there is evidence that the method may lead to incentive incompatible responses and be associated with starting point bias. While previous studies in health using BGs test for starting point bias, none have also investigated incentive incompatibility. Using a sample of respondents resident in Burkina Faso, West Africa, this paper examines whether the BG method is associated with both incentive incompatibility and starting point bias. We find evidence for both effects. However, average WTP values remained largely unaffected after accounting for both factors in multivariate analyses. The results suggest that the BG method is an acceptable technique in settings where prices for goods are flexible. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)75-87
Number of pages13
JournalHealth Economics
Volume19
Issue number1
Early online date3 Feb 2009
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2010

Keywords

  • contingent valuation
  • bidding game
  • starting point bias
  • incentive incompatibility
  • developing country
  • willingness-to-pay
  • health-insurance
  • West-Africa
  • preference
  • feasibility
  • questions
  • nets

Cite this

A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method. / McNamee, Paul; Ternent, Laura; Gbangou, Adjima; Newlands, David.

In: Health Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, 01.2010, p. 75-87.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McNamee, Paul ; Ternent, Laura ; Gbangou, Adjima ; Newlands, David. / A game of two halves? Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method. In: Health Economics. 2010 ; Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 75-87.
@article{6b61c4518ff5477e8dccafd6a253211c,
title = "A game of two halves?: Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method",
abstract = "The bidding game (BG) method of contingent valuation is one way to increase the precision of willingness to pay (WTP) estimates relative to the single dichotomous choice approach. However, there is evidence that the method may lead to incentive incompatible responses and be associated with starting point bias. While previous studies in health using BGs test for starting point bias, none have also investigated incentive incompatibility. Using a sample of respondents resident in Burkina Faso, West Africa, this paper examines whether the BG method is associated with both incentive incompatibility and starting point bias. We find evidence for both effects. However, average WTP values remained largely unaffected after accounting for both factors in multivariate analyses. The results suggest that the BG method is an acceptable technique in settings where prices for goods are flexible. Copyright {\circledC} 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",
keywords = "contingent valuation, bidding game, starting point bias, incentive incompatibility, developing country, willingness-to-pay, health-insurance, West-Africa, preference, feasibility, questions, nets",
author = "Paul McNamee and Laura Ternent and Adjima Gbangou and David Newlands",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1002/hec.1448",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "75--87",
journal = "Health Economics",
issn = "1057-9230",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A game of two halves?

T2 - Incentive incompatibility, starting point bias and the bidding game contingent valuation method

AU - McNamee, Paul

AU - Ternent, Laura

AU - Gbangou, Adjima

AU - Newlands, David

PY - 2010/1

Y1 - 2010/1

N2 - The bidding game (BG) method of contingent valuation is one way to increase the precision of willingness to pay (WTP) estimates relative to the single dichotomous choice approach. However, there is evidence that the method may lead to incentive incompatible responses and be associated with starting point bias. While previous studies in health using BGs test for starting point bias, none have also investigated incentive incompatibility. Using a sample of respondents resident in Burkina Faso, West Africa, this paper examines whether the BG method is associated with both incentive incompatibility and starting point bias. We find evidence for both effects. However, average WTP values remained largely unaffected after accounting for both factors in multivariate analyses. The results suggest that the BG method is an acceptable technique in settings where prices for goods are flexible. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AB - The bidding game (BG) method of contingent valuation is one way to increase the precision of willingness to pay (WTP) estimates relative to the single dichotomous choice approach. However, there is evidence that the method may lead to incentive incompatible responses and be associated with starting point bias. While previous studies in health using BGs test for starting point bias, none have also investigated incentive incompatibility. Using a sample of respondents resident in Burkina Faso, West Africa, this paper examines whether the BG method is associated with both incentive incompatibility and starting point bias. We find evidence for both effects. However, average WTP values remained largely unaffected after accounting for both factors in multivariate analyses. The results suggest that the BG method is an acceptable technique in settings where prices for goods are flexible. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KW - contingent valuation

KW - bidding game

KW - starting point bias

KW - incentive incompatibility

KW - developing country

KW - willingness-to-pay

KW - health-insurance

KW - West-Africa

KW - preference

KW - feasibility

KW - questions

KW - nets

U2 - 10.1002/hec.1448

DO - 10.1002/hec.1448

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 75

EP - 87

JO - Health Economics

JF - Health Economics

SN - 1057-9230

IS - 1

ER -