Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:47:29.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does payment type affect willingness-to-pay? Valuing new seed varieties in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2014

Fiona Hossack  and
Henry An
Fiona Hossack
Affiliation:
First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada E-mail: fiona.hossack@hc-sc.gc.ca
Henry An
Affiliation:
Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H1Canada. Tel.: 780-492-3915, Fax: 780-492-0268. E-mail: henry.an@ualberta.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cash is often used in economic experiments as an incentive to encourage realistic decision making or to compensate participants for their time. However, in many less developed countries, remunerating participants with cash can upset existing relationships with local institutions. In cases where the use of cash is not feasible, an alternative type of payment is required. Using a framed field experiment in Odisha, India (formerly Orissa), we explore an alternative payment method, in-kind, where typical household items are used in place of cash. We compare the differences in the valuation of yield stabilizing seed traits between in-kind and cash. Our results suggest that farmers are willing to pay less for seeds when they are paid cash than when they are paid in-kind. Bids are higher by 1.18 Indian Rupees when farmers are paid in-kind, corresponding to about a 7 per cent higher valuation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , June 2015 , pp. 407 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, A., Becker, N., Garb, Y., and Lazarovitch, N. (2011), ‘Willingness to pay, borrow, and work for rural water service improvements in developing countries’, Water Resources Research 47(11): W11512.Google Scholar
Asquith, N.M., Vargas, M.T., and Wunder, S. (2008), ‘Selling two environmental services: in-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia’, Ecological Economics 65(4): 675–684.Google Scholar
Becker, G.M., DeGroot, M.H., and Marschak, J. (1964), ‘Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method’, Behavioral Science 9(3): 226–232.Google Scholar
Cook, J., Chatterjee, S., Sur, D., and Whittington, D. (2013), ‘Measuring risk aversion among the urban poor in Kolkata, India’, Applied Economics Letters 20(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Cunha, J. (forthcoming), ‘Testing paternalism: cash vs. in-kind transfer in rural Mexico’, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics.Google Scholar
Eom, Y.-S. and Larson, D. (2006), ‘Valuing housework time from willingness to spend time and money for environmental quality improvements’, Review of Economics of the Household 4(3): 205–227.Google Scholar
Haab, T. and McConnell, K. (2002), Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Harrison, G., Johnson, E., McInnes, M., and Rutström, E. (2005), ‘Risk aversion and incentive effects: comment’, American Economic Review 95(3): 897–901.Google Scholar
Harrison, G.W. and List, J.A. (2004), ‘Field experiments’, Journal of Economic Literature 42(4): 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C. and Laury, S. (2005), ‘Risk aversion and incentive effects: new data without order effects’, American Economic Review 95(3): 902–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lybbert, T. (2006), ‘Indian farmers’ valuation of yield distributions: will poor farmers value ’pro-poor’ seeds?’, Food Policy 31(5): 415–41.Google Scholar
Rai, R.K. and Scarborough, H. (2013), ‘Economic value of mitigation of plant invaders in a subsistence economy: incorporating labour as a mode of payment’, Environment and Development Economics 18(2): 225–244.Google Scholar
Shah, A., Nayak, S., and Das, B. (2008), ‘Remoteness and chronic poverty in a forest region of Southern Orissa’, Working Paper No. 121, Chronic Poverty Research Centre, London.Google Scholar
Skoufias, E., Unar, M., and González-Cossío, T. (2008), ‘The impacts of cash and in-kind transfers on consumption and labor supply’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4778, World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Verbeek, M. (2008), A Guide to Modern Econometrics, 3rd edn Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J. (2002), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar