Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis

  • Stéphan Marette (a1), Jutta Roosen (a2) and Sandrine Blanchemanche (a3)
Abstract

This article explores the combination of laboratory and field experiments in defining a welfare framework and the impact of different regulatory tools on consumer behaviors. First, an overview of strengths and weaknesses raised by the experimental literature show that, for food consumption, lab and field experiments may be complementary to each other. The lab experiment elicits willingness to pay useful for determining per-unit damages based on well-informed, thoughtful preferences, while the field experiment determines purchase/consumption reactions in real contexts. Second, the analytical approach suggests how to combine the results of both lab and field experiments to determine the welfare impact of different regulatory tools such as labels and/or taxes. Third, an empirical application focuses on a lab and a field experiment conducted in France to evaluate the impact of regulation on fish consumption. Estimations for the French tuna market show that a per-unit tax on tuna and/or an advisory policy lead to welfare improvements.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
Blanchemanche, S., Marette, S., Roosen, J. and Verger, P. (2010). ‘Do not Eat Fish More Than Twice a Week’. Rational Choice Regulation and Risk Communication: Uncertainty Transfer from Risk Assessment to Public. Health, Risk and Society 12 (3): 271292.
Bureau, J.C., Marette, S. and Schiavina, A. (1998). Non-Tariff Trade Barriers and Consumers' Information: The Case of EU-US Trade Dispute on Beef. European Review of Agricultural Economics 25: 437-462.
Chang, J.B., Lusk, J.L., and Norwood, F.B. (2009). How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91:518-534.
Crespi, J. and Marette, S. (2001). How Should Food Safety Certification Be Financed? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 852-861.
Disdier, A.-C. and Marette, S. (2010). The Combination of Gravity and Welfare Approaches for Evaluating Non-Tariff Measures. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92: 713-726.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2004). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a Request from the Commission Related to Mercury and Methylmercury in Food. EFSA Journal 34, 1-14. http://www.efsa.eu.int (accessed February 2006).
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) (2004). What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish. Washington D.C. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html (accessed March 2006).
Falk, A. and Heckman, J.J. (2009). Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences. Science 326(5952): 535-538.
FranceAgriMer (2009). “Bilan Annuel 2008 – Consommation des Produits de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture.” Direction Marchés, Etudes et Prospective, Paris, France.
FSA (U.K. Food Standards Agency) (2003). Mercury in fish: your questions answered, http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/faq/mercuryfish/?version=1 (accessed April 2006).
FSAI (Food Standards Authority of Ireland) (2004). FSAI Issues Guidelines on Consumption of Shark, Swordfish, Marlin and Tuna, http://www.fsai.ie/news/press/pr_04/pr20040318.asp (accessed April 2006).
FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand) (2004). “Mercury in Fish”, http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/whatsinfood/mercuryinfish.cfm (accessed April 2006).
Hahn, R. and Tetlock, P. (2008). Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions? Journal of Economic Perspectives 22: 67-84.
Hahn, R. (2010) Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 5: 1-17.
Health Canada (2002). Advisory-Information on mercury levels in fish. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/protection/warnings/2002/2002_41e.htm (accessed March 2006).
Huffman, W. E, Rousu, M.C., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A. (2003). The Public Good Value of Information from Agribusinesses on Genetically Modified Food. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 1309-1315.
Huffman, W.E, Rousu, M.C., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A. (2007). The Effects of Prior Beliefs and Learning on Consumers’ Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 63: 193-206.
INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques) (1999). Mode de vie des personnes selon l'âge et le sexe, Paris. http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/chifcle_fiche.asp?ref_id=NATTEF02316&tab_id=34 (accessed October 2010).
Kagel, J. H. and Roth, A.E. (2000). The Dynamics of Reorganization in Matching Markets: A Laboratory Experiment Motivated by a Natural Experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115, 201-35.
Levitt, S. and List, J.A. (2007). What do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(2): 153-174.
Lusk, J.L., Pruitt, J.R. and Norwood, B. (2006). External Validity of a Framed Field Experiment. Economics Letters 93: 285290.
Lusk, J.L. and Shogren, J.F. (2007). Experimental Auctions. Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Lusk, J.L. and Marette, S. (2010). Welfare Effects of Food Labels and Bans with Alternative Willingness to Pay Measures. Applied Economic Perspectives & Policy 32(2): 319-337.
Lusk, J.L. and Schroeder, T.C. (2004). Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible : A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2): 467-482.
Lusk, J.L., House, L. O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S.R., Moore, M., Morrow, B., Traill, W.B. (2005). Consumer Welfare Effects of Introducing and Labeling Genetically Modified Food. Economics Letters 88: 382-388.
Lusk, J.L. and Norwood, F.B. (2009). Bridging the Gap between Laboratory Experiments and Naturally Occurring Markets: An Inferred Valuation Method. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58: 236250.
Marette, S. (2010). Consumer Confusion and Multiple Equilibria. Economics Bulletin 30 (2): 1120-1128.
Marette, S. and Crespi, J. (2003). Can Quality Certification Lead to Stable Cartel. Review of Industrial Organization, 23 (1): 43-64.
Marette, S., Lusk, J. and Roosen, J. (2010). Welfare Impact of Information with Experiments: The Crucial Role of the Price Elasticity of Demand. Economics Bulletin 30 (2): 1585-1593.
Marette, S., Roosen, J., and Blanchemanche, S. (2008a). Health Information and Substitution between Fish: Lessons from Laboratory and Field Experiments. Food Policy 33: 197-208.
Marette, S., Roosen, J., and Blanchemanche, S. (2008b). Taxes and Subsidies to Change Eating Habits when Information is not enough: An Application to Fish Consumption. Journal of Regulatory Economics 34: 119-143.
Marette, S., Roosen, J., and Blanchemanche, S., Verger, P. (2008c). The Choice of Fish Species: An Experiment Measuring the Impact of Risk and Benefit Information. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 33: 1-18.
Masters, W. A. and Sanogo, D. (2002). Welfare Gains from Quality Certification of Infant Foods: Results from a Market Experiment in Mali. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84: 974-989.
Robinson, L.A. and Hammitt, J.K. (2011). Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2(2) Article 5: 1-48.
Roe, B.E and Just, D.R. (2009). Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91: 1266-1271.
Roosen, J. and Marette, S. (2011) Making the ‘Right’ Choice based on Experiments: Regulatory Decisions for Food and Health. European Review of Agricultural Economics forthcoming.
Roosen, J., Marette, S., Blanchemanche, S., Verger, P. (2007). The Effect of Product Health Information on Liking and Choice. Food Quality and Preference 18: 759-770.
Roosen, J., Marette, S., Blanchemanche, S. and Verger, P. (2009). Does Health Information Matter for Modifying Consumption? A Field Experiment Measuring the Impact of Risk Information on Fish Consumption. Review of Agricultural Economics 31: 2-20.
Rousu, M. C. and Shogren, J. F. (2006). Valuing Conflicting Public Information. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31: 642-652.
Rousu, M.C. and Lusk, J. L. (2009). Valuing Information on GM Foods in a WTA Market: What Information is most Valuable? AgBioForum 12(2): 226-231.
Rousu, M.C. and Corrigan, J. R. (2008). Estimating the Welfare Loss to Consumers When Food Labels Do Not Adequately Inform: An Application to Fair Trade Certification. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 6(1): Article 3.
Rousu, M.C., Huffman, W. E., Shogren, J. F., and Tegene, A. (2004). Estimating the Public Value of Conflicting Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods. Land Economics 80: 125-135.
Rousu, M.C., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Tegene, A. (2007). Effects and Value of Verifiable Information in a Controversial Market: Evidence from Lab Auctions of Genetically Modified Food. Economic Inquiry 45: 409-432.
Sasaki, T. D., Becker, V., Janssen, M.A. and Neel, R. (2011). Does Greater Product Information Actually Inform Consumer Decisions? The Relationship Between Product Information Quantity and Diversity of Consumer Decisions. Journal of Economic Psychology 32: 391-398.
Shimshack, J.P., Ward, M.B. and Beatty, T.K.M (2007). Mercury advisories: Information, education, and fish consumption. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53: 158-179.
Smith, V.K. and Moore, E.M. (2010). Behavioral Economics and Benefit Cost Analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 46: 217-234.
Sugden, R. (2009). Market Simulation and the Provision of Public Goods: a NonPaternalistic Response to Anomalies in Environmental Evaluation. Journal of Environmental and Economic Management 57: 87103.
Teisl, M. F., Roe, B., and Hicks, R. L. (2002). Can Eco-labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 339-359.
Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the Food Industry in the Information Age. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32: 347-368.
Verger, P., Houdart, S., Marette, S., Roosen, J. and Blanchemanche, S. (2007). Impact of a Risk-Benefit Advisory on Fish Consumption and Dietary Exposure to Methylmercury in France. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 48: 259269.
Wansink, B., Sonka, S. and Hasler, C. (2004). Front-Label Health Claims: When Less is More. Food Policy 29: 659-667.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis
  • ISSN: 2194-5888
  • EISSN: 2152-2812
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed