A history of the Exxon funded CVM debate makes it to twitter ... in case you are missing it, there is a more recent BP funded CVM debate @Undercoverhist

1/ Looooong tweetstorm on use of contingent valuation method in Exxon Valdez case & what it says on how economics science & expertise work pic.twitter.com/SohMYTwnh7

— Beatrice Cherrier (@Undercoverhist) June 25, 2017

These 48 tweets cover the article that Tim posted earlier and also this one by Spencer Banzhaf (who alerted us to the Maas and Svorcencik article): 

Banzhaf , H. Spencer, Constructing Markets: Environmental Economics and the Contingent Valuation Controversy (October 21, 2016). History of Political Economy, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2959427.

Having lived through it [see below], I thought I knew everything about the CVM debate but still learned something new. For example: Diamond, Hausman and McFadden did not collect any of the Exxon-funded data (i.e., write the surveys, focus group, pretest and field the surveys). It seems that it was collected by others [*.pdf] and then, given their prominence in the profession, Diamond, Hausman and McFadden did the econometrics. 

Tweets 4 and 5 say:

4/Rather than countering w/ alternative estimates, Maas&Svorencik explain, Exxon casted doubt on method itself: contingent valuation (CV)

5/Unlike tobacco/climate cases, Exxon did NOT manufacture doubt, but tapped into EXISTING debates on scientific character of CV among econs

Being economic history, neither of these articles mention the brand new BP funded critique of CVM. It is clear that BP is following the same game plan as Exxon. Here is my recommended readings on the CVM Debate - Part Deux:

1. Carson, Richard T. "Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren't available." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 4 (2012): 27-42.
2. Hausman, Jerry. "Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 4 (2012): 43-56.
3. Kling, Catherine L., Daniel J. Phaneuf, and Jinhua Zhao. "From Exxon to BP: Has some number become better than no number?." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 4 (2012): 3-26.
4. [*] Desvousges, William, Kristy Mathews, and Kenneth Train. "Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation." Ecological Economics 84 (2012): 121-128.
5. Haab, Timothy C., Matthew G. Interis, Daniel R. Petrolia, and John C. Whitehead. "From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman's “dubious to hopeless” critique of contingent valuation." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 35, no. 4 (2013): 593-612.
6. [*] Desvousges, William, Kristy Mathews, and Kenneth Train. "An adding-up test on contingent valuations of river and lake quality." Land Economics 91, no. 3 (2015): 556-571.
7. Dickinson, David L., and John C. Whitehead. "Dubious and dubiouser: Contingent valuation and the time of day." Economic Inquiry 53, no. 2 (2015): 1396-1400. [note: published in the Miscellany section]
8. [*] Desvousges, William, Kristy Mathews, and Kenneth Train. "From Curious to Pragmatically Curious: Comment on “From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's ‘Dubious to Hopeless’ Critique of Contingent Valuation†”." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 38, no. 1 (2016): 174-182.
9. Haab, Timothy C., Matthew G. Interis, Daniel R. Petrolia, and John C. Whitehead. "Interesting Questions Worthy of Further Study: Our Reply to Desvousges, Mathews, and Train's (2015) Comment on Our Thoughts (2013) on Hausman's (2012) Update of Diamond and Hausman's (1994) Critique of Contingent Valuation." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 38, no. 1 (2016): 183-189.
10. Whitehead, John C. "Plausible responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation." Ecological Economics 128 (2016): 17-22. [note: this is a comment on DMT (2012) that grew into a full length paper with original content]
11. Chapman, David J., Richard C. Bishop, W. Michael Hanemann, Barbara J. Kanninen, Jon A. Krosnick, Edward R. Morey, and Roger Tourangeau. "On the adequacy of scope test results: Comments on Desvousges, Mathews, and Train." Ecological Economics 130 (2016): 356-360.
12. [*] Desvousges, William. "Reply to ‘On the adequacy of scope test results: Comments on Desvousges, Mathews, and Train’." Ecological Economics 130 (2016): 361-362.
13. Poe, Gregory L. "Behavioral Anomalies in Contingent Values and Actual Choices." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 45, no. 2 (2016): 246-269.
14. Whitehead, John C. "A Comment on 'An Adding Up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality'”. Appalachian State University Department of Economics Working Paper No. 17-01. 2017.
15. Bishop, Richard C., Kevin J. Boyle, Richard T. Carson, David Chapman, W. Michael Hanemann, Barbara Kanninen, Raymond J. Kopp et al. "Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: The BP oil spill." Science 356, no. 6335 (2017): 253-254.
16. [*] McFadden, Daniel, and Kenneth Train, eds. Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017.
17. Whitehead, John C. "A Replication of Willingness-to-pay Estimates in ‘An Adding Up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality’ (Land Economics, 2015)." unpublished manuscript, June 2017.

BP funded research is indicted by the [*]. 

Other than this:

Whitehead, John C., "Natural Resource Damage Assessment … May be Hazardous to Your Health," AERE Newsletter 36(2):32-38, November 2016.  [Download Aere newsletter november 2016 finalmv revised -essay]

What have I missed on my reading list?