Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T17:37:43.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peter Bohm: Father of field experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Martin Dufwenberg and
Glenn W. Harrison
Martin Dufwenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Institute for Behavioral Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0108, USA
Glenn W. Harrison*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-1400, USA
*
e-mail: martind@eller.arizona.edu
e-mail: gharrison@research.bus.ucf.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Peter Bohm (1935-2005) was the father of modern field experiments. He clearly understood and stated the differences between laboratory experiments and experiments with field counterparts. His research was a clear precursor to the methodology that is now becoming widely accepted as complementary to laboratory experiments.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 3: Field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity , September 2008, pp. 213 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Economic Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bohm, P. (1967). On the theory of second best. Review of Economic Studies, 34, 301–314.10.2307/2296678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, P. (1972). Estimating the demand for public goods: an experiment. European Economic Review, 3, 111–130.10.1016/0014-2921(72)90001-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, P. (1974). Social efficiency: a concise introduction to welfare economics. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Bohm, P. (1979). Estimating willingness to pay: why and how? Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 81, 142–153.10.2307/3439956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, P. (1984a). Revealing demand for an actual public good. Journal of Public Economics, 24, 135151.10.1016/0047-2727(84)90021-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, P. (1984b). Are there practicable demand-revealing mechanisms? In Hanusch, H. (Ed.), Public finance and the quest for efficiency. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Bohm, P. (1994a). Behavior under uncertainty without preference reversal: a field experiment. In Hey, J. (Ed.), Experimental economics. Heidelberg: Physica.Google Scholar
Bohm, P. (1994b). CVM spells responses to hypothetical questions. Natural Resources Journal, 34, 37–50.Google Scholar
Bohm, P. (2002). Pitfalls in experimental economics. In Andersson, F. & Holm, H. (Eds.), Experimental economics: financial markets, auctions, and decision making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Bohm, P. (2003). Experimental evaluations of policy instruments. In Mäler, K. G. & Vincent, J. R. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics (Vol. 1, pp. 438–460). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bohm, P., & Carlén, B. (2002). Cost-effective approaches to attracting low-income countries to international emissions trading: theory and experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, 187–211.10.1023/A:1021207617800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, P., & Dufwenberg, M. (2003). Politik på prov—en ESO-rapport om experimentell ekonomi. Ds 2003:31, Swedish Ministry of Finance.Google Scholar
Bohm, P., & Kneese, A. V. (Eds.). (1971). The economics of environment. London: Macmillan & Co.10.1007/978-1-349-01379-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, P., & Lind, H. (1993). Preference reversal, real-world lotteries, and lottery-interested subjects. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 22, 327–348.10.1016/0167-2681(93)90005-ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botelho, A., Harrison, G. W., Pinto, L. M. C., & Rutström, E. E. (2005). Social norms and social choice (Working Paper 05-23). Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.Google Scholar
Cummings, R. G., & Harrison, G. W. (1994). Was the Ohio court well informed in their assessment of the accuracy of the contingent valuation method? Natural Resources Journal, 34, 1–36.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., & Kriström, B. (1998). General equilibrium effects of increasing carbon taxes in Sweden. In Brännlund, R. & Gren, I. (Eds.), Green taxes: theory and practice. London: Elgar.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1013–1059.10.1257/0022051043004577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1979). Incentive compatible experimental processes for the provision of public goods. In Smith, V. L. (Ed.), Research in experimental economics (pp. 59–168). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Stern, N. (2006). The Stern review of the economics of global warming. Available from web site at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm.Google Scholar