Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T02:14:43.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farm Animal Welfare—Testing for Market Failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Fredrik Carlsson ,
Peter Frykblom  and
Carl Johan Lagerkvist
Fredrik Carlsson
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Göteborg University
Peter Frykblom
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Carl Johan Lagerkvist
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Get access

Abstract

Many consumers are concerned with animal welfare in the conventional production of farm livestock. This concern can be related both to their own and others' consumption. In the latter case, there is a negative externality from consumption. We suggest a survey design that enables us to test for a market failure in farm livestock production. Applying this to the question of battery cages in egg production, we cannot show that a market failure exists. The policy can be extended to a general discussion of how potential market failures for all kind of farm livestock should be managed.

Keywords

animal welfarechoice experimentsmarket failureD12Q13Q18
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , April 2007 , pp. 61 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2007

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.)

References

Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., and Martinsson, P.. “Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation.” Economic Issues 8(2003):83–110.Google Scholar
Andersson, J., and Frykblom, P.. “Exploring Non-market Values for the Social Impact of Farm Animal Legislation.” Working paper Series 1999:2. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics, 1992.Google Scholar
Bennett, R.M. “The Value of Farm Animal Welfare.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 46(1995):46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R.M. “Farm animal welfare and food policy.” Food Policy 22(1997):281–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R.M., and Blaney, R.J.P.. “Estimating the Benefits of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation Using the Contingent Valuation Method.” Agricultural Economics 29(2003):85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R.M., and Larson, D.. “Contingent Valuation of the Perceived Benefits of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Exploratory Survey.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 47(1996):224–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R.M., Henson, S., Harper, G., Blaney, R., and Preibisch, K.. Economic Evaluation of Farm Animal Welfare Policy: Baseline Study and Framework Development—Final Report to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Location: The Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, 2000.Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J., Poor, P.J., and Taylor, L.O.. “Estimating the Demand for Protecting Freshwater Lakes from Eutrophication.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(1999):1118–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunstad, R.J., Gaasland, I., and Vardai, E.. “Agricultural Production and the Optimal Level of Landscape Preservation.” Land Economics 75(1999):538–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunch, D., Louviere, J., and Andersson, D.. “A Comparison of Experimental Design Strategies for Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis with Generic-Attribute Multinomial Logit Models.” Working Paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis, 1996.Google Scholar
Cameron, T., Poe, G., Either, R., and Schulze, W.. “Alternative Nonmarket Value-Elicitation Methods: Are Revealed and Stated Preferences the Same?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44(2002):391–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F., and Martinsson, P.. “Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41(2001):179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, R., Groves, R., and Machina, M.. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Paper presented at the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (EAERE) Ninth Annual Conference, Oslo, 1999.Google Scholar
Hamilton, S.F., Sunding, D.L., and Zilberman, D.. “Public Goods and the Value of Product Quality Regulations: The Case of Food Safety.” Journal of Public Economics 87(2003):799–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, M. “Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(1984):332–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, M. “Welfare Analysis with Discrete Choice Models.” Valuing Recreation and the Environment. Herriges, J.A. and Kling, C.L., eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1999.Google Scholar
Hensher, D., and Greene, W.. “The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice.” Transportation 30(2003):133–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O., and Sveds, H.äter. “Self-Image and Choice Experiments: Hypothetical and Actual Willingness to Pay.” Working Paper No. 94, Department of Economics, Göteborg University, 2003.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A.. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” Review of Economics and Statistics 68(1986):715–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, K. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 74(1966):132–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J., Hensher, D., and Swait, J.. Stated Choice Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C.. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2004):467–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D., and Train, K.. “Mixed MNL Models for Discrete Response.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 15(2000):447–70.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mclnerney, J.P. “Animal Welfare: An Economic Perspective.” Valuing Farm Animal Welfare. Proceedings of a Workshop held at University of Reading. Reading, UK: The University of Reading, 1993.Google Scholar
Moynagh, J. “EU Regulation and Consumer Demand for Animal Welfare.” AgBioForum 3(2000):107–14.Google Scholar
Nyborg, K. “Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: Interpretation and Aggregation of Environmental Values.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 42(2000):305–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poe, G., Giraud, K., and Loomis, J.. “Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2005):353–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prückner, G.J. “Agricultural Landscape Cultivation in Austria: An Application of the CVM.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 22(1995):173–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revelt, D., and Train, K.. “Mixed Logit with Repeated Choices: Households Choices of Appliance Efficiency Level.” Review of Economics and Statistics 80(1998):647–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolfe, J. “Ethical Rules and the Demand for Free Range Eggs.” Economic Analysis and Policy 2(1999):187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K. “Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People.” Land Economics 74(1998):230–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, S.T., Jensen, H.T., and Wang, Q.. “Cholesterol Information and Egg Consumption in the US: A Nonnormal and Heteroscedastic Double-Hurdle Model.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 3(1996):343–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar