000			01602nam a22002417a 4500
003			ZW-GwMSU
005			20230919094111.0
008			230919b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aMSU _cMSU _erda
100			_aSTODDER, James
245			_aThe strange persistence of consumer surplus
264			_aNew York _bTaylor & Francis _c2013
336			_2rdacontent _atext _btxt
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc
440			_aApplied Economics Letters _vVolume , number ,
520			_aDespite its abandonment in theoretical work, a literature search shows that variation in consumer surplus (VCS) is the overwhelming choice in applied work – not compensating variation (CV) or equivalent variation (EV). How can this be explained? Besides the obvious ease of computation, there are three good reasons for the persistence of VCS. (1) The Willig bounds on VCS usually give close upper and lower bounds on CV and EV, respectively, and are thus conservative in the estimation of EV. (2) Without integrability, all three measures are inaccurate. Common quasi-linear utility assumptions for VCS, however, imply integrability. (3) Even with integrability, the expected values of highly nonlinear CV and EV measures cannot be determined by substituting prices or quantities into the estimated equations; simulations are required. Thus, VCS is not only simpler, it may also be more accurate.
650			_awilling bounds
650			_aintegrability
650			_anon - linearity
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2013.788776
942			_2lcc _cJA
999			_c163306 _d163306