Attema Arthur E, Bleichrodt Han, L'Haridon Olivier, Peretti-Watel Patrick, Seror Valérie
1Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
2Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
J Risk Uncertain. 2018;56(2):117-140. doi: 10.1007/s11166-018-9279-1. Epub 2018 May 9.
This study compares discounting for money and health in a field study. We applied the direct method, which measures discounting independent of utility, in a representative French sample, interviewed at home by professional interviewers. We found more discounting for money than for health. The median discount rates (6.5% for money and 2.2% for health) were close to market interest rates, suggesting that at the aggregate level the direct method solves the puzzle of unrealistically high discount rates typically observed in applied economics. Constant discounting fitted the data better than the hyperbolic discounting models that we considered. The substantial individual heterogeneity in discounting was correlated with age and occupation.
本研究在一项实地研究中比较了对金钱和健康的贴现。我们采用直接法,该方法独立于效用衡量贴现,在一个具有代表性的法国样本中,由专业访谈员进行上门访谈。我们发现对金钱的贴现比对健康的贴现更多。中位数贴现率(金钱为6.5%,健康为2.2%)接近市场利率,这表明在总体水平上,直接法解决了应用经济学中通常观察到的贴现率高得离谱的难题。恒定贴现比我们考虑的双曲线贴现模型更适合数据。贴现方面存在的个体显著异质性与年龄和职业相关。