Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:43:30.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revenue targeting in fisheries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2013

Quang Nguyen  and
Pingsun Leung
Quang Nguyen
Affiliation:
Economics Department, Nanyang Technological University, 14 Nanyang Drive, S637332, Singapore. Tel: 6567904895. E-mail: dqnguyen@ntu.edu.sg
Pingsun Leung
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA. E-mail: psleung@hawaii.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We apply the target revenue model, a version of prospect theory, to investigate how fishermen adjust their trip length to changes in daily revenue. The key finding is that certain groups of fishermen seem more likely to behave according to the target revenue model rather than to the standard model of labor supply. We also find that vessel capacity has little effect on whether the captains seek target revenue. The study strongly supports the integration of prospect theory into the framework of labor supply analysis.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 559 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Borjas, G.J. (1980), ‘The relationship between wages and weekly hours of work: the role of division bias’, Journal of Human Resources 15(3): 409–423.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., and Thaler, R. (1997), ‘Labour supply of New York City cab drivers: one day at a time’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 407–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, C. and Trivedi, K.P. (2006), Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chou, Y.K. (2002), ‘Testing alternative models of labor supply: evidence from cab drivers in Singapore’, Singapore Economic Review 47(1): 17–47.Google Scholar
Crawford, V. and Meng, J. (2011), ‘New York City cabdrivers’ labor supply revisited: reference-dependent preferences with rational-expectations targets for hours and income’, American Economic Review 101(5): 1912–1932.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. and MacKinnon, J.G. (1993), Estimation and Inference in Econometrics, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eggert, H. and Lokina, B.R. (2007), ‘Small scale fisher and risk preferences’, Marine Resource Economics 22(1): 49–67.Google Scholar
Farber, H. (2005), ‘Is tomorrow another day? The labor supply of New York cab drivers’, Journal of Political Economy 113: 46–82.Google Scholar
Farber, H. (2008), ‘Reference-dependent preferences and labor supply: the case of New York City taxi drivers’, American Economic Review 98(3): 1069–1082.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Falk, A. (2002), ‘Psychological foundations of incentives’, European Economic Review 46: 687–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Goette, L. (2007), ‘Do workers work more when wages are high? Evidence from a randomized field experiment’, American Economic Review 97(1): 298–317.Google Scholar
Gautam, A., Strand, I., and Kirkley, J. (1996), ‘Leisure/labor tradeoffs: the backward-bending labor supply in fishery’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31(3): 352–367.Google Scholar
Goette, L., Huffman, D., and Fehr, E. (2004), ‘Loss aversion and labor supply’, Journal of the European Economic Association 2(2): 215–228.Google Scholar
Greene, W. (2004), Econometric Analysis, 5th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Larrick, R., and Wu, G. (1999), ‘Goals as reference points’, Cognitive Psychology 38: 79–109.Google Scholar
Holland, D.S. (2008), ‘Are fishermen rational: a fishing expedition’, Marine Resource Economics 23: 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, D.S. and Sutinen, J.G. (2000), ‘Location choice in New England trawl fisheries: old habits die hard’, Land Economics 76(1): 133–149.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (2000), Choices, Values and Frames, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Köszegi, B. and Rabin, M. (2006), ‘Modelling reference-dependent preferences’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 121(4): 1133–1166.Google Scholar
Lynham, J., Siegel, D., and Costello, C. (2007), ‘Income targeting and the evolution of a fishery’, Poster from the 2007 American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
Stock, J.H. and Watson, M.W. (2006), ‘Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression’, Econometrica 76(1): 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stock, J.H. and Yogo, M. (2005), ‘Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression’, in Andrews, D.W.K. and Stock, J.H. (eds), Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80–108.Google Scholar