II.2.2.2. Willingness to pay as a result of one's
preference
The notion of willingness to pay broadly roots from consumer's
demand function (Varian, 1992). Opting for paying can be beheld as the
translation of one's utility got from a related good or service (Varian, 1992;
Jha and Bhalla, 2018). But being unwilling to pay for a commodity should not
intuitively pass as an evidence of total absence of willingness to pay (Matraia
et al., 2006). It all depends on the opportunity cost that forgoing a slight
share of one's income implies (Jha and Bhalla, 2018).
Jha and Bhalla (2018) hereon highlight willingness to engage
and the ability to engage referring to community aptitude to contribute for
contending poverty. Associated engagement thus relies on sensitization of new
community members to lift the impact of their action toward the target.
Let's then consider a collection of consumers as referred to
Varian (1992). Each one of them faces a demand function for some k commodities
so that a consumer's demand function becomes a vector   for  .
Note: goods are indicated by superscripts while consumers are
indicated by subscripts.
Aggregating these individual demands helps to obtain a unique
aggregate demand function
defined by   .Then, the aggregate demand for goods   can be denoted by   ; with m, the vector of incomes   ). As a centralizing function, the aggregate function is made of
individual demand function characteristics. A reference is for instance
directly taken from continuity of the individual demand function. Assume a
consumer is able to acquire only one chair for given price  . At any other price   such as   exceeds the initial price  , consumer   demands zero of the good. On the other hand, each other price   inferior or equal to   implies  's consumption of one unit of the good. From this demonstration,
consumer's preference can be ranked by the means of this set of prices:   such as [  ] represents consumer willingness to pay side and, in contrast, at   the consumer can't face the proposed price higher than the initial
price and, as result, none is disposed to pay.
Indeed, WTP of public goods such as environment conservation
or getting comfortable infrastructure is relatively complex. In light of this,
better is to understand how WTP varies regarding to the transparency of
institutions.
II.2.2.3. Institutional trust and Willingness to pay
When people are needed to pool for a common good or service,
what first happens for each one of them is somehow hedonic. Gain motives first
their decisions towards disbursing for a given realization. Multiple are those
kinds of communal schemes that have failed and so are state-folks cooperation
in specific developmental ventures when one of the part is not seriously
engaged in the ideology and practical fulfillment.
From that mood, willingness to pay is affected by the
institutional trust (Macias and Williams, 2014). Jin (2013) defines
institutional trust as «the extent to which citizens have confidence in
public institutions to operate in the best interest of society and its
constituents». The credibility and legitimacy of developmental policies
reflect a successful fulfillment of people's trust in institutions (Islam et
al., 2019; Uddin, 2019). "The lower the level of trust in the state actors
tasked with the provision of the public good, the lower the likely valuation
individuals will attach to the good in question which ultimately affects their
WTP toward its provision" (Marbuah, 2016). Other needful elements in bettering
community-governance interaction are transparency and accountability of the
ruling regime. Both elements must be conveyed through access to information
(Ampa, 2018). The issue of mistrust in institutions has been found to be one of
the main reasons for citizens' protest responses and lower WTP in many
environmental valuation studies (Jones et al., 2008; Polyzouet al., 2011).
| 
