The Dilemmas of Public Vs. Private Goods Discounting for Long-Term Investment Appraisal: The Puzzle of Citizen and Consumer Approaches to Valuation

• Autorzy: Monika Foltyn-Zarychta
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Research background: An investment appraisal applies a single discount rate across all effects. However, this may be insufficient for heterogenous environmental impacts, mixing private and public goods as well as use and non-use values, where individuals may have multiple intertemporal preferences due to their duality to act as consumer or citizen. Purpose: The paper aims at identifying the scope of discrepancies in the level of discount rate for public and private as well as use-and non-use investment gains. Research methodology: The contingent valuation method is used to elicit stated discount rates for 2 hypothetical investments: environmental or financial gains to distinguish between public and private domain accompanied by two time-frames: short (use values) and long (non-use values). Results: The discount rate for the environment is lower than for money. It is also lower for the long-term horizon in comparison with the short-term perspective. The discrepancies are observed also for explanatory variables in respect to a socio-economic profile and attitude characteristics. Novelty: The paper adds to the discussion on valuation discrepancies between self-interested consumers and socially oriented citizens. The scarcity of previous research examining discount rates for public/private goods as well as the short/long-time horizon make the results relevant for public policy dealing with climate change and environmental protection, providing an insight into individual intertemporal preferences. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Valuation; Investment value; Discount method; Consumer; Citizen

PL

Wycena; Wartość inwestycji; Metody dyskontowe; Konsument; Obywatel

• Czasopismo: Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia
• Rocznik: 2020
• Numer: vol. 20, iss. 2
• Strony: 114--133

Twórcy

autor

Monika Foltyn-Zarychta

• University of Economics in Katowice, Poland

Bibliografia

• Almansa, C., Martínez-Paz, J.M. (2011). What weight should be assigned to future environmental impacts? Aprobabilistic cost benefit analysis using recent advances on discounting. Science of the Total Environment, 409 (7), 1305-1314. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.004.
• Bateman, I.J., Day, B.H., Georgiou, S., Lake, I. (2006). The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics, 60 (2), 450-460. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.003.
• Baumol, W.J. (1968). On the social rate of discount. The American Economic Review, 58 (4), 788-802.
• Berry, M.S., Nickerson, N.P., Odum, A.L. (2017). Delay discounting as an index of sustainable behavior: devaluation of future air quality and implications for public health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 (9), 997. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14090997.
• Bleichrodt, H., Gao, Y., Rohde, K.I. (2016). A measurement of decreasing impatience for health and money. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52 (3), 213-231. DOI: 10.1007/s11166-016-9240-0.
• Boyle, K.J. (2017). Contingent valuation in practice. In: P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle, T.C. Brown (eds.) A primer on nonmarket valuation (pp. 83-131). Springer: Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8_4.
• Chapman, G.B. (2001). Time preferences for the very long term. Acta Psychologica, 108 (2), 95-116. DOI: 10.1016/s0001-6918(01)00030-0.
• Cropper, M.L., Aydede, S.K., Portney, P.R. (1994). Preferences for life saving programs: how the public discounts time and age. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8 (3), 243-265. DOI: 10.1007/bf01064044.
• Foltyn-Zarychta, M. (2012). Biases in Contingent Valuation Method Used for Investment Project Appraisal. In: P. Cervinek (ed.), European Financial Systems (pp. 45-50). Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.
• Foltyn-Zarychta, M. (2018). Ocena inwestycji międzypokoleniowych - kryteria etyczne w ekonomicznej ocenie efektywności projektów inwestycyjnych. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
• Foltyn-Zarychta, M., Zerbe, R.O. (2019). The Economics of CSR: the role of citizen-consumer mix in the social responsible investing. In: M. Castellaneta, F. Vessia (eds.), La Responsabilità Sociale D'Impresa Tra Diritto Societario E Diritto Internazionale. Serie VI, n. 175, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane (pp. 81-114). Napoli: Università Degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza Pubblicazioni.
• Frederick, S. (2003). Measuring intergenerational time preference: Are future lives valued less? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26 (1), 39-53. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022298223127.
• Hanley, N., Schläpfer, F., Spurgeon, J. (2003). Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management, 68 (3), 297-304. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-4797(03)00084-7.
• Hardisty, D.J., Weber, E.U. (2009). Discounting future green: money versus the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (3), 329. DOI: 10.1037/ a0016433.
• Heal, G. (1997). Discounting and climate change. Climatic Change, 37 (2), 335-343.
• Howley, P., Hynes, S., O'Donoghue, C. (2010). The citizen versus consumer distinction: an exploration of individuals' preferences in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics, 69 (7), 1524-1531. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.012.
• Johnston, R.J., Besedin, E.Y., Holland, B.M. (2019). Modelling distance decay within valuation meta-analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 72 (3), 657-690. DOI: 10.1007/s10640-018-0218-z.
• Jørgensen, S.L., Olsen, S.B., Ladenburg, J., Martinsen, L., Svenningsen, S.R., Hasler, B. (2013). Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements-Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecological Economics, 92, 58-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.015.
• Lazo, J.K., McClelland, G.H., Schulze, W.D. (1997). Economic theory and psychology of nonuse values. Land Economics, 358-371. DOI: 10.2307/3147173.
• Lewinsohn-Zamir, D. (1998). Consumer preferences, citizen preferences, and the provision of public goods. The Yale Law Journal, 108 (2), 377-406. DOI: 10.2307/797478.
• Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (2), 573-597. DOI: 10.2307/2118482.
• Luckert, M.K., Adamowicz, W.L. (1993). Empirical measures of factors affecting social rates of discount. Environmental and Resource Economics, 3 (1), 1-21. DOI: 10.1007/bf00338317.
• Lumley, S. (1997). The environment and the ethics of discounting: An empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 20 (1), 71-82. DOI: 10.1016/s0921-8009(96)00073-0.
• Meerding, W.J., Bonsel, G.J., Brouwer, W.B., Stuifbergen, M.C., Essink-Bot, M.L. (2010). Social time preferences for health and money elicited with a choice experiment. Value in Health, 13 (4), 368-374. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00681.x.
• Mill, G.A., Van Rensburg, T.M., Hynes, S., Dooley, C. (2007). Preferences for multiple use forest management in Ireland: Citizen and consumer perspectives. Ecological Economics, 60 (3), 642-653. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.005.
• Moser, C., Stauffacher, M., Smieszek, T., Seidl, R., Krütli, P., Scholz, R.W. (2013). Psychological factors in discounting negative impacts of nuclear waste. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 121-131. DOI: /10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.003.
• Newell, R.G., Pizer, W.A. (2003). Discounting the Distant Future: How Much Do Uncertain Rates Increase Valuations? SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.366281.
• Nyborg, K. (2000). Homo economicus and homo politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 42 (3), 305-322. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-2681(00)00091-3.
• Orr, S.W. (2007). Values, preferences, and the citizen-consumer distinction in cost-benefit analysis. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6 (1), 107-130. DOI: 10.1177/1470594x07068306.
• Perman, R., Ma, Y., McGilvray, J., Common, M. (2003). Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
• Perrings, C., Gadgil, M. (2003). Conserving biodiversity: Reconciling local and global public benefits. In: I. Kaul, P. Conceicao, K. Le Goulven, R.U. Mendoza (eds.), Providing Global Pubic Goods. Managing Globalization (pp. 532-555). New York: United Nations Development Programme, Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/0195157400.003.0022.
• Saez, C.A., Requena, J.C. (2007). Reconciling sustainability and discounting in Cost-Benefit Analysis: A methodological proposal. Ecological Economics, 60 (4), 712-725 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.002.
• Sagoff, M. (1986). Values and preferences. Ethics, 96 (2), 301-316. DOI: 10.1086/292748.
• Sandler, T. (2009). Intergenerational public goods: Transnational considerations. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 56 (3), 353-370. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9485.2009.00488.x.
• Sen, A.K. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 317-344.
• Sunstein, C.R. (1996). Social norms and social roles. Columbia Law Review, 96 (4), 903-968. DOI: 10.2307/1123430.
• Sunstein, C.R., Rowell, A. (2007). On discounting regulatory benefits: Risk, money, and intergenerational equity. The University of Chicago Law Review, 171-208. DOI: 10.2139/ ssrn.756832.
• Tukey, J.W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesely.
• Weatherly, J.N., Terrell, H.K., Derenne, A. (2010). Delay discounting of different commodities. The Journal of General Psychology: Experimental, Psychological, and Comparative Psychology, 137 (3), 273-286. DOI: 10.1080/00221309.2010.484449.
• Whitehead, J.C., Blomquist, G.C. (2006). The use of contingent valuation in benefit-cost analysis. In: A. Alberini, J.R. Kahn (eds.) Handbook on contingent valuation (pp. 92-115).
• Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar. DOI: 10.4337/9781845427917.00009. WWW1 http://stat.gov.pl (20.02.2020)

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/foli-2020-0039