Why do people non-demand reveal in hypothetical double referenda for public goods?

Hypothetical contingent valuation surveys used to elicit values for environmental and other public goods often employ variants of the referendum mechanism due to the cognitive simplicity and familiarity of respondents with this voting format. One variant, the double referendum mechanism, requires respondents to state twice how they would vote for a given policy proposal given their cost of the good. Data from these surveys often exhibit anomalies inconsistent with standard economic models of consumer preferences. There are a number of published explanations for these anomalies, mostly focusing on problems with the second vote. This article investigates which aspects of the hypothetical task affect the degree of nondemand revelation and takes an individual-based approach to identifying people most likely to non-demand reveal. A clear profile emerges from our model of a person who faces a negative surplus i.e. a net loss in the second vote and invokes non self-interested, non financial motivations during the decision process.

Neoliberalism, the University, Public Goods, and Agricultural Innovation

After World War II, most industrialising nations adopted some form of welfare-state approach to balance the economic activities of self-interested agents and social welfare. In the realm of scientific research and innovation, this often meant that governments took primary responsibility for funding public research organisations, including research universities and government laboratories. Over the past four decades, however, the significance of private funding for agricultural research has increased, and academic scientists now often work in public-private partnerships. We argue that this trend needs to be carefully monitored because public goods are likely to be overlooked and undervalued in such arrangements. In the interest of developing indicators to monitor the trend, we document public and private funding for agricultural research and agricultural innovation in four countries: the USA, the UK, Ireland and Germany. Our results show that although neoliberalism is evident in each country, it is not homogeneous in its application and impacts, suggesting that national and institutional contexts matter. This article is directed at stimulating debates on the relationships between university research, agricultural innovation and public goods.

Becoming private property: custom, law, and the geographies of ‘ownership’ in 18th- and 19th-century England

The making private of hitherto public goods is a central tenet of neoliberalism. From land in Africa, Asia, and South America to the assertion of property rights over genes and cells by corporations, the process(es) of making private property matters more than ever. And yet, despite this importance, we know remarkably little about the spatial plays through which things become private property. In this paper I seek to address this imbalance by focusing upon the formative context of 18th- and early-19th-century England. The specific lens is wood, that most critical of all ‘natural’ things other than land in the transition to market-driven economies. It is shown that the interplay between custom, law, and local practices rendered stable and aspatial definitions of property impossible. Whilst law was the key technology through which property was mediated, the cadence of particular places gave these mediations distinctive forms. I conclude that not only must we take property seriously, but we must also take the conditions and contexts of its making seriously too.

Punishment, blame and stigma after conflict: the experience of politically motivated former prisoners in Northern Ireland

This paper examines the relationship between the politics of blame in post-conflict Northern Ireland and the treatment of politically motivated former prisoners. Using the examples of direct and indirect discrimination in the areas of employment and access to mental health services, the paper considers how the discursive operation of blaming produces evasions and attributions of guilt. It argues that such blaming practices have very real material consequences for the allocation or withholding of goods and burdens in the community. The paper notes also that the ‘cause of victims’ is often appropriated by the press and other political actors for their own purposes, frequently to block the provision of public goods to one particular group of ex-combatants: ex-politically motivated prisoners. It concludes by posing a series of questions about blaming, justice and the moral authority of the victim in a transitional justice context. The claim of the paper is simply to offer some starting points for understanding the relationship between processes of blame, stigma and social exclusion.

Some further implications of incorporating the warm glow of giving into welfare measures: A comment on the use of donation mechanisms by Champ et al

Champ er al. [J. Environ. Management 33, 151-162 (1997)] claim that they have (a) explored the welfare implication of warm glow for Hicksian measures of value for public goods and (b) established that actual donations place a

Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes:Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?

This paper proposes a discrete mixture model which assigns individuals, up to a probability, to either a class of random utility (RU) maximizers or a class of random regret (RR) minimizers, on the basis of their sequence of observed choices. Our proposed model advances the state of the art of RU-RR mixture models by (i) adding and simultaneously estimating a membership model which predicts the probability of belonging to a RU or RR class; (ii) adding a layer of random taste heterogeneity within each behavioural class; and (iii) deriving a welfare measure associated with the RU-RR mixture model and consistent with referendum-voting, which is the adequate mechanism of provision for such local public goods. The context of our empirical application is a stated choice experiment concerning traffic calming schemes. We find that the random parameter RU-RR mixture model not only outperforms its fixed coefficient counterpart in terms of fit-as expected-but also in terms of plausibility of membership determinants of behavioural class. In line with psychological theories of regret, we find that, compared to respondents who are familiar with the choice context (i.e. the traffic calming scheme), unfamiliar respondents are more likely to be regret minimizers than utility maximizers. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

A Eulogy to Seed Sharing: Manufacturing Genuine Scarcity

Seeds are traditionally considered as common or even public goods, their traits as ‘products of nature’. They are also essential to biodiversity, food security and food sovereignty. However, a suite of techno-legal interventions has legislated the enclosure of seeds: seed patents, plant variety protections, and stewardship agreements. These instruments create and protect private proprietary interests over plant material and point to the interface between seeds, capitalism, and law. In the following article, we consider the latest innovations, the bulk of which have been directed toward genetically disabling the reproductive capacities of seeds (terminator technology) or tying these capacities to outputs (‘round-up necessary’). In both instances, scarcity moves from artificial to real.
For the agro-industrial complex, the innovations are perfectly rational as they can simultaneously control supply and demand. For those outside the complex, however, the consequences are potentially ruinous. The practices of seed-saving and exchange no longer are feasible, even covertly. Contemporary genetic controls have upped the ante, by either disabling the reproductive capacity of seeds or, through cross-pollination and outcrossing, facilitating the autonomous spread of the genetic modifications that are importantly still traceable, identifiable and therefore capable of legal protection. In both instances, genuine scarcity becomes the new standard as private interests dominate what was a public sphere.

Size Matters: The Effect of the Size of Ethnic Groups on Development

The share of ethnic groups is one of the most important features of African politics. It affects civil wars, representation in government positions, distributive and allocative policies. In this paper we use the partition of ethnic groups as a natural experiment in order to estimate the effect of the share of these ethnic groups on development. We show that larger groups have an advantage in terms of development and that the partition in itself does not matter for development. This result is explained by the fact that the partition matters only when the resulting groups are relatively small, since their lack of political representation may weaken support for institutions, may bias policies and the provision of ethnic/regional public goods.

From brown envelopes to community benefits: the co-option of planning gain agreements under deepening neoliberalism

The provision of physical and social infrastructure in the form of roads, green spaces and community facilities has traditionally been provided for by the state through the general taxation system. However, as the state has been transformed along more neoliberal lines, the private sector is increasingly relied upon to deliver public goods and services. Planning gain agreements have flourished within this context by offering another vehicle through which local facilities are privately funded. Whilst these agreements reflect the broader dynamics of neoliberalism, they are commonly viewed as a tool which can be employed to challenge these very dynamics by empowering local communities to secure more just planning outcomes. This paper counters such claims. Based on evidence gathered from 80 interviews with planners, councillors, developers and community groups in Ireland, the paper demonstrates how planning gain agreements have been strategically redeployed by the holders of political and economic power to serve their own ends. In seeking to understand why and how this has occurred, specific consideration is given to the changing power dynamics between the state and private capital under neoliberalism. The paper highlights how institutional arrangements have enabled developers to infiltrate the political sphere in more subtle and implicit ways than ever before. We conclude by arguing that planning gain must be understood as a mechanism which has been manipulated in ways which essentially work to preserve and enhance, rather than redress, existing power imbalances in the planning system by facilitating large scale transfers of wealth upwards in society.