Hostname: page-component-588bc86c8c-zwqp5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-30T13:47:05.588Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Poverty, market imperfections and time preferences: of relevance for environmental policy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 1998

STEIN T. HOLDEN
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, P.O. Box 5033, 1432 Ås, Norway
BEKELE SHIFERAW
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, P.O. Box 5033, 1432 Ås, Norway
METTE WIK
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, P.O. Box 5033, 1432 Ås, Norway

Abstract

Rates of time preference (RTPs) of rural households in Indonesia, Zambia and Ethiopia have been measured using hypothetical questions about preferences for current versus future consumption. In general, the rates were found to be very high. Factors influencing or correlated with the personal rates of time preference were investigated through regression methods. OLS was the technique used in the estimation. Market imperfections, particularly in credit and insurance markets lead to variation in RTPs. Poverty in assets, or cash liquidity constraints, was leading to or correlated with higher rates of time preference. The poor are, therefore, less likely to invest in environmental conservation. In Zambia, independent estimates of risk preferences were made. More risk-averse people tended to have lower RTPs. The results support the hypothesis that poverty and/or liquidity scarcity lead to high RTPs. Poverty reduction may thus reduce the RTPs of the poor and reduce the 'intertemporal externality' due to high RTPs. The high average RTPs indicate, however, that complementary policies may be needed to ensure sufficient levels of investment in conservation. Another logical implication is that institutionalization of private property rights may not be a sufficient tool to initiate sustainable resource management.

Type
Policy Options
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank Arild Angelsen, Peter Hazell, John Heath, John Pender, Sara Scherr, Matti Vainio, Manfred Zeller and three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Funds for the field work were obtained through the NORINDRA Rain Forest and Resource Management project for the case study in Indonesia and from the Ecology and Development project for the studies in Zambia and Ethiopia. Both projects were funded by the Research Council of Norway.