Clicca qui per scaricare

Consumer inertia in energy markets: Insights from behavioral economics
Titolo Rivista: ECONOMIA PUBBLICA  
Autori/Curatori: Astrid Gamba, Anna Bottasso 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2019 Fascicolo: Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  18 P. 113-130 Dimensione file:  100 KB
DOI:  10.3280/EP2019-003005
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


The transition towards deregulated energy markets requires a dynamic participation by consumers. Yet, in many European countries, a high degree of consumer inertia is observed: the rate of switching to new tariffs and providers is far from being satisfactory. Neoclassical consumer choice models cannot explain this phenomenon, unless assuming that perceived transactions costs are disproportionately high. This paper discusses how more realistic assumptions about consumer behavior can help interpret low switching rates. In particular, it examines psychological aspects (e.g., loss aversion, present bias, ambiguity aversion) and cognitive biases (e.g., choice overload, overconfidence) that can explain consumer stickiness in energy markets. Different behavioral traits point at different policy interventions. Therefore, such analysis illustrates how crucial it is that policy-makers aiming at reducing consumer inertia take these behavioral aspects into account and make use of experimental testing when laying out interventions.


Keywords: Energy markets, consumer inertia, regulation, psychological biases, cognitive limitations, behavioral economics
Jel Code: D91, D12, L51, L94, L95

  1. Hartman R.S., Doane M.J. and Woo C.K. (1991). Consumer rationality and the status quo. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(1): 141-162., DOI: 10.2307/2937910
  2. Bager S. and Mundaka L. (2017). Making ‘Smart Meters’ smarter? Insights from a behavioral economics pilot field experiment in Copenhagen, Denmark. Energy Research & Social Science, 28: 68-76., DOI: 10.1016/J.ERSS.2017.04.008
  3. Behavioral Insights Team (2011). Annual update 2010-2011, UK.
  4. Behavioral Insights Team (2015). Update report 2013-2015, UK.
  5. Bem D.J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3): 183-200., DOI: 10.1037/H0024835
  6. Bordalo P., Gennaioli N. and Shleifer A. (2017). Memory, Attention, and Choice. NBER Working Paper No. 23256., DOI: 10.3386/W23256
  7. Chernev A., Böckenholt U. and Goodman J. (2015). Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2)., DOI: 10.1016/J.JCPS.2015.07.001
  8. De Bartolome C. (1995). Which tax rate do people use: Average or marginal? Journal of Public Economics, 56(1): 79-96., DOI: 10.1016/0047-2727(93)01409-4
  9. Ellsberg D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4): 643-669.
  10. Fox C.R. and Tversky A. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110: 585-603., DOI: 10.2307/2946693
  11. Frederick S., Loewenstein G. and O’Donoghue T. (2002). Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2): 351-401., DOI: 10.1257/002205102320161311
  12. Frederiks E.R., Stenner K. and Hobman E.V. (2015). Household energy use: Applying behavioral economics to understand consumer decision-making and behavior, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41: 1385-1394., DOI: 10.1016/J.RSER.2014.09.026
  13. Frederick S., Loewenstein G. and O’Donoghue T. (2004). Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. In Advances in Behavioral Economics, ed. C. Camerer G., Loewenstein and M. Rabin, 162-222. New York/Princeton, NJ: Sage-Princeton University Press., DOI: 10.1515/9781400829118-009
  14. Gillingham K. and Palmer K. (2014). Bridging the energy efficiency gap: policy insights from economic theory and empirical evidence. Review of Environmental Economic Policy, 8: 18-38., DOI: 10.1093/REEP/RET021
  15. Gillingham K., Rapson D. and Wagner G. (2016). The rebound effect and energy efficiency policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(1): 68-88., DOI: 10.1093/REEP/REV017
  16. Giulietti M., Waddams Price C. and Waterson M. (2005). Consumer choice and competition policy: a study of UK energy markets. Economic Journal, 115(506): 949-968., DOI: 10.1111/J.1468-0297.2005.01026.X
  17. Gourbille J.T. and Soman D. (2005). Overchoice and assortment type: When and why variety backfires. Marketing Science, 24(3): 382-395., DOI: 10.1287/MKSC.1040.0109
  18. Heath C. and Tversky A. (1991). Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4: 5-28., DOI: 10.1007/BF00057884
  19. Hortaçsu A., Madanizadeh S.A. and Puller S.L. (2017). Power to Choose? An Analysis of Consumer Inertia in the Residential Electricity Market. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 9(4): 192-226., DOI: 10.1257/POL.20150235
  20. Ipsos, London Economics and Deloitte, 2016. Second consumer market study on the functioning of the retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency (Chafea), Unione Europea.
  21. Kahneman D., Knetsch K.L. and Thaler R. (1991). The Endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 193-206., DOI: 10.1257/JEP.5.1.19
  22. Kahneman D. and Tversky A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263-291., DOI: 10.2307/1914185
  23. Kahneman D. and Tversky A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuition. Cognition, 11: 123-141., DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(82)90022-1
  24. Kahneman D. and Tversky A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4): 341-350.
  25. Koichiro I. (2014). Do consumers respond to marginal or average price? Evidence from nonlinear electricity pricing. American Economic Review, 104(2): 537-563., DOI: 10.1257/AER.104.2.537
  26. Laibson D. (1994). Self-control and savings. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  27. Laibson D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2): 443- 477., DOI: 10.1162/003355397555253
  28. Langer E.J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2): 311-328., DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.311
  29. Loock C., Staake T. and Thiesse F. (2013). Motivating energy-efficient behavior with green is: an investigation of goal setting and the role of defaults. Mis Quarterly, 37 (4): 1313-1332., DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.4.15
  30. Lunn P. (2011). Telecommunications consumers: A behavioral economic analysis, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) Working Paper, 417.
  31. Nelson P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2): 311-329., DOI: 10.1086/259630
  32. O’Donoghue T. and Rabin M. (2001). Choice and procrastination. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1): 121-160., DOI: 10.1162/003355301556365
  33. Ofgem (2011). What can behavioral economics say about GB energy consumers? Pichert D. and Katsikopoulos K. (2008). Green defaults: information presentation and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28: 63-73.
  34. Reiss P.C. and White M.W. (2005). Household electricity demand, revisited. Review of Economic Studies, 72(3): 853-883., DOI: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354
  35. Samuelson W. and Zeckhauser R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision-making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1: 7-59.
  36. Schmalensee R. (1982). Product differentiation advantages of pioneering brands. American Economic Review, 72(3): 349-65.
  37. Selten, R. (1965). Spieltheoretische Behandlung eines Oligopolmodells mit Nachfrageträgheit – Teil I Bestimmung des dynamischen Preisgleichgewichts., Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 121: 301-24. -- https://www.jstor.org/stable/40748884.
  38. Shin K.J. and Managi S. (2017). Liberalization of a retail electricity market: Consumer satisfaction and household switching behavior in Japan. Energy Policy, 110(C): 675-685., DOI: 10.1016/J.ENPOL.2017.07.048
  39. Sitzia F., Zheng J. and Zizzo D.J. (2015). Inattentive consumers in markets for services, Theory and Decision, 79: 307-332.
  40. Thaler R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, 1: 39-60., DOI: 10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7
  41. Thaler R. (1981). Some empirical evidence of dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8(3): 201.207., DOI: 10.1016/0165-1765(81)90067-7
  42. Tietenberg T. (2009). Reflections – energy efficiency policy: pipe dream or pipeline to the future? Review of Environmental Economic Policy, 3: 304-320.
  43. Tversky A. and Kahneman D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481): 453-458., DOI: 10.1126/SCIENCE.7455683
  44. Tversky A. and Shafir E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3(6): 358-361., DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-9280.1992.TB00047.
  45. Waddams Price C., Webster C. and Zhu M. (2013). Searching and switching: empirical estimates of consumer behavior in regulated markets. Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) Working Paper 11, University of East Anglia.
  46. Wilson C. (2012). Up-scaling, formative phases, and learning in the historical diffusion of energy technologies. Energy Policy, 50: 81-94., DOI: 10.1016/J.ENPOL.2012.04.077
  47. Wilson C. and Waddams Price C. (2005). Irrationality in consumers’ switching decisions: When more firms may mean less benefit, Mimeo, Industrial Organization, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  48. Wilson C. and Waddams Price C. (2010). Do consumers switch to the best supplier? Oxford Economic Papers, 62(4): 647-668., DOI: 10.1093/OEP/GPQ006

Astrid Gamba, Anna Bottasso, in "ECONOMIA PUBBLICA " 3/2019, pp. 113-130, DOI:10.3280/EP2019-003005

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche