酒後駕車行為之取締的願付風險價值研究

The Study of the Willingness to Pay for Drunk Driving and Risk a Ban

10.6402/TPJ.200712.0509

葉寶文(Po-Wen Yeh)；傅祖壇(Tsu-Tan Fu)

酒後駕車 ； 假設市場評估法 ； 願付風險價值 ； 執法強度認知 ； 意外事故的風險認知 ； Drunk driving ； Contingent valuation method CVM ； Willingness to pay ； Enforcement perception ； Accident risk perception

運輸計劃季刊

36卷4期（2007 / 12 / 30）

509 - 533

繁體中文

本研究探討的非市場性財貨係屬具有風險性的酒後駕車行為，是假設「冒險」可以使得人們的滿足程度提升，所以人們選擇從事酒後駕車行為，代表此一風險行為能提高其自身的滿足程度，基於此願意支付金額（罰款）去承擔一旦被取締的處罰，因此，取捨關係在此須視人們心目中對於執法機關取締酒後駕車的主觀認知強度，強度越高，人們會為了「冒險」而願意支付金額（罰款）從事此一風險行為的可能性越小，此願付金額即稱之為從事酒後駕車之願付的風險價值。由於理性個人之酒後駕車行為受其自身的取締強度認知及發生意外事故的風險認知影響，因此本研究利用假設市場評估法，引入上述理性個人的兩個認知，導出評估風險價值函數，用以進行酒後駕車之願付風險價值的估計。本研究實證估計酒後駕車被取締的願付風險價值約在15,000~16,600元之間。

This paper attempts to use CVM to measure the willingness to pay (WTP) for drunk driving and risk a ban. We assume ”adventure” might raise satisfaction. This is the reason why people drive while drunk, he/she must be willing to pay (the penalty) when arrested. The trade-off between satisfaction and penalty depends on the intensity of personal subjective perception of enforcement of drunk driving. The stronger the enforcement perception, the lower the possibility people are willing to pay the fine of this risky behavior. Rational people's behavior for drunk driving is affected by his/her enforcement perception and accident risk perception. We use these two perceptions to evaluate risk. The results of our observed research indicate that the WTP amount for the risk of a ban is from 15 to 16.6 thousand NT dollars.

1. 蕭代基、錢玉蘭、蔡麗雪(1998)。淡水河系水質與景觀改善效益之評估。經濟研究，35(1)，25-29。
   連結：
2. Becker, G. S.(1968).Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.Journal of Political Economy,76(2),169-217.
3. Bishop, R. C.,Heberlein, T. A.(1979).Measuring Values of Extra-Market Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?.American Journal of Agricultural Economics,61,926-930.
4. Bowker, J.,Stoll, J.(1988).Use of Dichotomous Choice Nonmarket Methods to Value the Whooping Crane Resource.American Journal of Agricultural Economics,70(2),372-381.
5. Chu, C. Y.,Jiang, N.(1993).Are Fine More Efficient than Imprisonment?.Journal of Public Economics,51,115-124.
6. Dickie, M.,Gerking, S.(1996).Formation of Risk Beliefs, Joint Production and Willingness to Pay to Avoid Skin Cancer.the Review of Economics and Statistics,451-463.
7. Fisher, R. A.(1994).The Design of Experiments.Edinburgh, U.K.:Oliver and Boyd Ltd..
8. Hanemann, W. M.(1984).Welfare Evaluation in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.American Journal of Agricultural Economics,66(3),332-341.
9. Kenkel, D. S.(1993).Do Drunk Drivers Pay Their Way? A Note on Optimal Penalties for Drunk Driving.Journal of Health Economics,12,137-149.
10. Kenkel, D. S.(1993).Drinking, Driving, and Deterrence: The Effectiveness and Social Costs of Alternative Policies.Journal of Law and Economics,36,877-913.
11. Mullahy, J.,Sindelar, J. L.(1994).Do Drinkers Know When to Say When? An Empirical Analysis of Drunk Driving.Economic Inquiry,32(3),383-394.
12. Phelps, C. E.(1987).Risk and Perceived Risk of Drunk Driving among Young Drivers.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,6(4),708-714.
13. Polinsky, A. M.,Shavell, S.(1991).A Note on Optimal Fines When Wealth Varies among Individuals.American Economic Review,81,618-621.
14. Polinsky, A. M.,Shavell, S.(1979).The Optimal Tradeoff between the Probability and Magnitude of Fines.American Economic Review,69,880-891.
15. Rice, D. P.,Mackenzie, E. J.,Max, W.(1990).The Lifetime Cost of Injury.Inquiry,27,332-343.
16. Rosen, S.(1981).Valuing Health Risk.American Economic Review,71(2),241-145.
17. Saffer, H.,Chaloupka, F. J.(1987).Breath Testing and the Demand for Drunk Driving.NBER, Working Paper No. 2301.
18. Sloan, F. A.,Githens, P. B.(1994).Drinking, Driving, and the Price of Automobile Insurance.Journal of Risk and Insurance,61(1),33-58.
19. Sloan, F. A.,Reilly B. A.,Schenzler, C.(1995).Effects of Tort Liability and Insurance on Heavy Drinking and Drinking and Driving.Journal of Law and Economics,38,49-77.
20. Thayer, M .A.(1981).Contingent Valuation Techniques for Assessing Environmental Impacts: Further Evidence.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,8(1),27-44.
21. Zethraeus, N.(1998).Willingness to Pay for Hormone Replacement Therapy.Journal of Health Economics,7,31-38.
22. 統計專題分析
23. 中華民國交通統計計月報(2004)
24. 傅祖壇、周濟(1995)。乘坐高速鐵路之支付意願及時間價值－假設評估法之應用。經濟論文叢刊，23(3)，259-283。
25. 臺北市家庭收支概況調查報告
26. 臺北市交通統計年報(2004)
27. 臺北縣政府民政局(2003)。臺北縣政府民政局1221-00-01-2報表。
28. 劉錦添(1990)。淡水河水質改善的經濟效益評估－封閉式假設市場評估法之應用。經濟論文，18(2)，99-128。
29. 劉錦添、陳宜廷(1996)。罹病減輕的願付金額估計－臺灣都會區與石化專業區的比較。經濟論文，24(3)，397-431。

1. 郭奕妏(2010)。高速公路實施電子計程收費之駕駛人願付通行費率分析。運輸計劃季刊，39(2)，223-250。