Cost misperception and voting for public goods

Abstract Public good provision is often determined through referendums by voters, who weigh benefits against costs. However, perceptions of benefits and costs may be incorrect, which could in turn lead to voter error and misallocation of public goods. Using real‐world referendums, we evaluate voter perceptions of the private costs of providing public goods by conducting three exit polls of New England voters and an online survey of California voters. By comparing cost perceptions to actual tax incidence, we find pervasive evidence that voters misperceive costs. Fewer than 20% of voters in our samples reported perceived costs within 25% of estimated actual costs. These findings are unsurprising given the ubiquity of opaque language explaining the financial consequences of public good referendums. In addition, our analysis suggests that actual costs have no statistical bearing on voter choice, but at least in the New England sample, voter approval is affected by perceived costs. Thus, a substantial proportion of voters are making decisions based in part on inaccurate costs, which in some cases lead to people voting against their preferences and potential misallocation of public funds. Further, researchers who match voter approval with estimated actual cost are unlikely to obtain accurate cost responsiveness or valuation estimates.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Published
2024-09-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12492
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Economic and Environmental Valuation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.52

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cost misperception and voting for public goods

Shanna Pearson‐Merkowitz, Casey J. Wichman, Michael J. Weir, Corey Lang
5 citations
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Economic and Environmental Valuation
4.52
article

Cost misperception and voting for public goods

Shanna Pearson‐Merkowitz, Casey J. Wichman, Michael J. Weir, Corey Lang
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Abstract Public good provision is often determined through referendums by voters, who weigh benefits against costs. However, perceptions of benefits and costs may be incorrect, which could in turn lead to voter error and misallocation of public goods. Using real‐world referendums, we evaluate voter perceptions of the private costs of providing public goods by conducting three exit polls of New England voters and an online survey of California voters. By comparing cost perceptions to actual tax incidence, we find pervasive evidence that voters misperceive costs. Fewer than 20% of voters in our samples reported perceived costs within 25% of estimated actual costs. These findings are unsurprising given the ubiquity of opaque language explaining the financial consequences of public good referendums. In addition, our analysis suggests that actual costs have no statistical bearing on voter choice, but at least in the New England sample, voter approval is affected by perceived costs. Thus, a substantial proportion of voters are making decisions based in part on inaccurate costs, which in some cases lead to people voting against their preferences and potential misallocation of public funds. Further, researchers who match voter approval with estimated actual cost are unlikely to obtain accurate cost responsiveness or valuation estimates.

American Journal of Agricultural EconomicsVol. 107(2)
Georgia Institute of Technology (US), University of Rhode Island (US), Resources For The Future (US), University of Maryland, College Park (US), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (US)
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Economic and Environmental Valuation
4.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Cost misperception and voting for public goods — Shanna Pearson‐Merkowitz, Casey J. Wichman, et al. · American Journal of Agricultural Economics (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS