Loss aversion for the value of voting rights: WTA/WTP ratios for a ballot

IF 0.9 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS International Review of Law and Economics Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.irle.2021.106041
Hiroharu Saito
{"title":"Loss aversion for the value of voting rights: WTA/WTP ratios for a ballot","authors":"Hiroharu Saito","doi":"10.1016/j.irle.2021.106041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>What is the subjective value of voting rights? This article presents an empirical demonstration of people’s loss aversion for the value of voting rights. By way of vignette experiments using scenarios of the 2020 U.S. presidential election (Studies 1 and 2, with U.S. citizens) and a fictitious direct premier election in Japan (Study 3, with Japanese citizens), the present research measured the willingness-to-accept compensation (WTA) and the willingness-to-pay price (WTP) for a ballot(s) in political elections. A great disparity between WTA and WTP was found regardless of the electoral setting, the proportion and width of ballot alteration, and the initial status. Specifically, the observed WTA/WTP ratios for a ballot(s) were within the range of 5.00–27.36, which is much larger than the ratios for ordinary market goods (about 1.5–2.5) and which is comparable to the ratios for other non-market goods. In addition, WTA for a mere 10% dilution of voting rights is still higher than WTP for full voting rights; the powerful effect of loss aversion might help explain universal barriers against suffrage extension.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47202,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law and Economics","volume":"69 ","pages":"Article 106041"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014481882100065X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What is the subjective value of voting rights? This article presents an empirical demonstration of people’s loss aversion for the value of voting rights. By way of vignette experiments using scenarios of the 2020 U.S. presidential election (Studies 1 and 2, with U.S. citizens) and a fictitious direct premier election in Japan (Study 3, with Japanese citizens), the present research measured the willingness-to-accept compensation (WTA) and the willingness-to-pay price (WTP) for a ballot(s) in political elections. A great disparity between WTA and WTP was found regardless of the electoral setting, the proportion and width of ballot alteration, and the initial status. Specifically, the observed WTA/WTP ratios for a ballot(s) were within the range of 5.00–27.36, which is much larger than the ratios for ordinary market goods (about 1.5–2.5) and which is comparable to the ratios for other non-market goods. In addition, WTA for a mere 10% dilution of voting rights is still higher than WTP for full voting rights; the powerful effect of loss aversion might help explain universal barriers against suffrage extension.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对投票权价值的损失厌恶:选票的WTA/WTP比率
投票权的主观价值是什么?本文实证证明了人们对投票权价值的损失厌恶。通过使用2020年美国总统选举(研究1和2,与美国公民)和虚构的日本直接总理选举(研究3,与日本公民)场景的小插图实验,本研究测量了政治选举中接受补偿的意愿(WTA)和支付价格的意愿(WTP)。无论选举设置、选票变更的比例和宽度,还是初始状态,WTA和WTP都存在很大的差异。具体而言,观察到的选票的WTA/WTP比率在5.00-27.36之间,这比普通市场商品的比率(约1.5-2.5)要大得多,也与其他非市场商品的比率相当。此外,WTA对仅10%投票权的稀释仍高于WTP对完全投票权的稀释;损失厌恶的强大效应或许有助于解释反对延长选举权的普遍障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
38
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The International Review of Law and Economics provides a forum for interdisciplinary research at the interface of law and economics. IRLE is international in scope and audience and particularly welcomes both theoretical and empirical papers on comparative law and economics, globalization and legal harmonization, and the endogenous emergence of legal institutions, in addition to more traditional legal topics.
期刊最新文献
Estimating the effect of concealed carry laws on murder: A response to Bondy, et al. The broken-windows theory of crime: A Bayesian approach Workload, legal doctrine, and judicial review in an authoritarian regime: A study of expropriation judgments in China Illicit enrichment in Germany: An evaluation of the reformed asset recovery regime's ability to confiscate proceeds of crime On the strategic choice of overconfident lawyers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1