Book contents
- Animal Economics
- Animal Economics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Preliminaries
- Part II The Direct Approach
- Part III The Indirect Approach
- 11 Proanimal Concerns
- 12 Behavioral Studies
- 13 Proanimal Concerns
- 14 An Economic Model of the Meat Paradox
- 15 Some Economics of Pets
- 16 Markets and Morals
- 17 Further Excursions
- 18 Conclusion
- Afterword
- Index
- References
16 - Markets and Morals
from Part III - The Indirect Approach
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 November 2025
Book contents
- Animal Economics
- Animal Economics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Preliminaries
- Part II The Direct Approach
- Part III The Indirect Approach
- 11 Proanimal Concerns
- 12 Behavioral Studies
- 13 Proanimal Concerns
- 14 An Economic Model of the Meat Paradox
- 15 Some Economics of Pets
- 16 Markets and Morals
- 17 Further Excursions
- 18 Conclusion
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter examines how markets influence decisions regarding animals. It begins by analyzing the supply side, focusing on production costs associated with improving animal welfare. It then explores whether markets erode moral considerations and discusses corporate social responsibility strategies, specifically voluntary actions taken by firms to enhance animal welfare.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Animal EconomicsDirectly and Indirectly Accounting for Animal Welfare, pp. 286 - 299Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Bartling, B, Özdemir, Y (2023) The limits to moral erosion in markets: Social norms and the replacement excuse. Games and Economic Behavior, 138, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, T, Ghatak, M (2007) Retailing public goods: The economics of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Public Economics, 91(9), 1645–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blattner, C (2019) Protecting Animals within and across Borders: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Challenges of Globalization. Oxford University Press, 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovenberg, AL, Goulder, LH (2002) Environmental taxation and regulation. In Handbook of Public Economics, eds. Auerbach, AJ and Feldstein, M, Vol. 3, 1471–1545. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Buchanan, JM (1969) External diseconomies, corrective taxes, and market structure. The American Economic Review, 59(1), 174–177.Google Scholar
Copeland, BR, Taylor, MS (2004) Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 7–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewatripont, M, Tirole, J (2024) The morality of markets. Journal of Political Economy, 132(8), 2655–2694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M, Heidhues, P, Kirchsteiger, G, Riedel, F, Sobel, J (2011) Other-regarding preferences in general equilibrium. The Review of Economic Studies, 78(2), 613–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinosa, R, Treich, N (2023) Animal welfare as a public good. Ecological Economics, 216, 108025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A, Neuber, T, Szech, N (2020) Diffusion of being pivotal and immoral outcomes. The Review of Economic Studies, 87(5), 2205–2229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A, Szech, N (2013) Morals and markets. Science, 340(6133), 707–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, S, Wallenbeck, A, Agenäs, S, Hansson, H (2024) The impact of animal welfare regulations on pork trade: Evidence from European countries. Working Paper Series/Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics, (2024: 3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannan, J (Ed.) (2020) Meatsplaining: The Animal Agriculture Industry and the Rhetoric of Denial. Sydney University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, CY., Lange, A, List, JA, Price, MK (2017) The business of business is business: Why (some) firms should provide public goods when they sell private goods (No. w23105). National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsey, RG, Lancaster, K (1956) The general theory of second best. The Review of Economic Studies, 24(1), 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, JL, Norwood, FB (2011) Animal welfare economics. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 33(4), 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, T, Lusk, JL (2016) Putting the chicken before the egg price: An “ex post” analysis of California’s battery cage ban. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 41(3), 518–532.Google Scholar
McMullen, S (2015) Is capitalism to blame? Animal lives in the marketplace. Journal of Animal Ethics, 5(2), 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullen, S (2022) Competition, regulation, and the race to the bottom in animal agriculture. In Animals and Business Ethics, ed. Thomas, N, 113–130. Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendez, S, Peacock, J (2022) The impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on animal welfare standards: Evidence from the cage-free egg industry. Available at SSRN 4219976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullally, C, Lusk, JL (2018) The impact of farm animal housing restrictions on egg prices, consumer welfare, and production in California. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 100(3), 649–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, SE, Vukina, T (2022) The price of cage‐free eggs: Social cost of Proposition 12 in California. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104(4), 1293–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pi, L, Vukina, T (2025) Horizontal merger simulation in a Cournot oligopoly with competitive fringe: The US broiler industry case. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 107(3), 869–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Requate, T (2006) Environmental policy under imperfect competition. In The International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, eds. Tietenberg, T and Folmer, H, 120–207. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Seibert, L, Norwood, FB (2011) Production costs and animal welfare for four stylized hog production systems. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 14(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson, P, White, S (2015) The Impact of the World Trade Organisation Rules on Animal Welfare. Compassion in World Farming.Google Scholar
Xie, M (2023) Sales of cage-free eggs: The impact of proposition 12 on egg prices and consumer welfare in California. The Journal of Purdue Undergraduate Research, 13(1), 11.Google Scholar
Ziegler, AG, Romagnoli, G, Offerman, T (2024) Morals in multi-unit markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 22(5), 2225–2260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features.
We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is
not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions,
please contact
accessibility@cambridge.org.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.