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
17 - Further Excursions
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 discusses briefly several topics: social influences, political aspects, the role of information and education, the impact of innovations, and the compassionate conservation literature.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Animal EconomicsDirectly and Indirectly Accounting for Animal Welfare, pp. 300 - 323Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Arpinon, T (2024) The social cost of adopting a plant-based diet. Ecological Economics, 224, 108283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, D (2006) Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 76–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beausoleil, NJ, Mellor, DJ, Baker, L et al. (2018) “Feelings and fitness” not “feelings or fitness” – the raison d’être of conservation welfare, which aligns conservation and animal welfare objectives. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, M, Berlin, N, James, J, Skafida, V (2018) The formation and malleability of dietary habits: A field experiment with low income families. Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, 2(4), 707–746.Google Scholar
Bollard, L (2023a) A year of wins for farmed animals. Open Philanthropy farm animal welfare research newsletter.Google Scholar
Bollard, L (2023b) What could AI mean for animals? Open Philanthropy farm animal welfare research newsletter.Google Scholar
Bonnet, C, Bouamra-Mechemache, Z, Réquillart, V, Treich, N (2020) Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare. Food Policy, 97, 101847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briefer, EF, Sypherd, CCR, Linhart, P et al. (2022) Classification of pig calls produced from birth to slaughter according to their emotional valence and context of production. Scientific Reports, 12, 3409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camilleri, AR, Larrick, RP, Hossain, S, Patino-Echeverri, D (2019) Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nature Climate Change, 9(1), 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavaillé, C, Chen, DL, Van der Straeten, K (2024) Who cares? Measuring differences in preference intensity. Political Science Research and Methods, 13(2). 1–17.Google Scholar
Dechezleprêtre, A, Fabre, A, Kruse, T et al. (2024) Fighting climate change: International attitudes toward climate policies. American Economic Review, 115(4), 1258–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delon, N, Purves, D (2018) Wild animal suffering is intractable. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Waal, F (2016) Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Espinosa, R, Borau, S, Treich, N (2024) Impact of NGOs’ undercover videos on citizens’ emotions and pro-social behaviors. Scientific Reports, 14, 20584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Espinosa, R, Treich, N (2021) Moderate versus radical NGOs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103(4), 1478–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinosa, R, Treich, N (2024) Economics of animal law and welfare: Social objective and strategies. In Oxford Handbook of Global Animal Law, eds. Peters, Anne, Stilt, Kristen and Stucki, Saskia. Oxford University Press, in press.Google Scholar
Feinberg, M, Kramer, LA, Lacetera, N (2021) A tough nudge to crack: An experimental study on behavioral cues to reduce animal-based food consumption, mimeo.Google Scholar
Fernandez, R, Rodrik, D (1991) Resistance to reform: Status quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1146–1155.Google Scholar
Frieden, J, Silve, A (2023) The political reception of innovations. Economics & Politics, 35(2), 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funke, F, Mattauch, L, Bijgaart, IVD et al. (2022) Toward optimal meat pricing: Is it time to tax meat consumption? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 16(2), 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagendorff, T, Bossert, LN, Tse, YF, Singer, P (2023) Speciesist bias in AI: How AI applications perpetuate discrimination and unfair outcomes against animals. AI and Ethics, 3(3), 717–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, ER, Gillogly, M, Bradford, BE (2021) Children are unsuspecting meat eaters: An opportunity to address climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 78, 101705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haile, M, Jalil, A, Tasoff, J, Vargas Bustamante, A (2021) Changing hearts and plates: The effect of animal-advocacy pamphlets on meat consumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 668674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, D, Hubbard, C (2013) Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure. Food Policy, 38, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, B, Thoni, C, Gachter, S (2008) Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319(5868), 1362–1367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, PD, Dacey, A (2008) Vegetarian meat: Could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannsen, K (2020) Wild Animal Ethics: The Moral and Political Problem of Wild Animal Suffering. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesternich, I, Siflinger, B, Smith, JP, Winter, JK (2015) Individual behaviour as a pathway between early-life shocks and adult health: Evidence from hunger episodes in post-war Germany. The Economic Journal, 125(588), F372–F393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klenert, D, Funke, F, Cai, M (2023) Meat taxes in Europe can be designed to avoid overburdening low-income consumers. Nature Food, 4(10), 894–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kortleve, AJ, Mogollón, JM, Harwatt, H, Behrens, P (2024) Over 80% of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy supports emissions-intensive animal products. Nature Food, 5(4), 288–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunst, JR, Haugestad, CAP (2018) The effects of dissociation on willingness to eat meat are moderated by exposure to unprocessed meat: A cross-cultural demonstration. Appetite, 120, 356–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lai, Y, Boaitey, A, Minegishi, K (2022) Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives. Food Policy, 106, 102184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Yaouanq, Y (2023) A model of voting with motivated beliefs. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 213, 394–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, BNJ, Vivalt, E (2018) Effective strategies for overcoming the naturalistic heuristic: Experimental evidence on consumer acceptance of “clean” meat, mimeo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowski, KL, Roxburgh, S (2019) “If I became a vegan, my family and friends would hate me:” Anticipating vegan stigma as a barrier to plant-based diets. Appetite, 135, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matějka, F, Tabellini, G (2021) Electoral competition with rationally inattentive voters. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(3), 1899–1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathur, MB, Peacock, J, Reichling, DB et al. (2021) Interventions to reduce meat consumption by appealing to animal welfare: Meta-analysis and evidence-based recommendations. Appetite, 164, 105277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Mechtenberg, L, Perino, G, Treich, N, Tyran, JR, Wang, S (2024) Self-signaling in voting. Journal of Public Economics, 231, 105070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, G, Schumacher, I (2020) The importance of considering optimal government policy when social norms matter for the private provision of public goods. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 22(3), 630–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, JA, Monin, B (2012) Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neethirajan, S (2021) The use of artificial intelligence in assessing affective states in livestock. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 715261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak, MA (2006) Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560–1563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nyborg, K, Anderies, JM, Dannenberg, A et al. (2016) Social norms as solutions. Science, 354(6308), 42–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olson, M (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perino, G, Schwickert, H (2023) Animal welfare is a stronger determinant of public support for meat taxation than climate change mitigation in Germany. Nature Food, 4(2), 160–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabinovitch, A, Myślińska-Szarek, K, Cantarero, K, Byrka, K (2024) Eating pigs, not Peppa Pig: The effect of identifiability on children’s propensity to humanize, befriend, and consume edible animals. Appetite, 200, 107505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramp, D, Bekoff, M (2015) Compassion as a practical and evolved ethic for conservation. BioScience, 65, 323–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randers, L, Thøgersen, J (2023) Meat, myself, and I: The role of multiple identities in meat consumption. Appetite, 180, 106319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robbins, JA, Franks, B, Weary, DM, Von Keyserlingk, MA (2016) Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations. Food Policy, 61, 121–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, GO, Savulescu, J (2014) The ethics of producing in vitro meat. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31(2), 188–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwardmann, P, Van der Weele, J (2019) Deception and self-deception. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(10), 1055–1061.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sekar, N, Shiller, D (2020) Engage with animal welfare in conservation. Science, 369, 629–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegrist, B, Sutterlin, B, Hartmann, C (2018) Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Science, 139, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmonds, P, Vallgård, S (2021) “It’s not as simple as something like sugar”: Values and conflict in the UK meat tax debate. International Journal of Health Governance, 26(3), 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, DR (2013) Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much–and How To Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter. Conari Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P, Tse, YF (2023) AI ethics: The case for including animals. AI and Ethics, 3(2), 539–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solda, A, Ke, C, Page, L, Von Hippel, W (2020) Strategically delusional. Experimental Economics, 23, 604–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoeber, J, Dhont, K, Salmen, A (2024) Individual differences in effective animal advocacy: Moderating effects of gender identity and speciesism. Anthrozoös, 37(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treich, N (2021) Cultured meat: Promises and challenges. Environmental and Resource Economics, 79(1), 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treich, N (2022) The Dasgupta Review and the problem of anthropocentrism. Environmental and Resource Economics, 83(4), 973–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Loo, EJ, Caputo, V, Lusk, JL (2020) Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy, 95, 101931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Loo, EJ, Caputo, V, Nayga, RM, Verbeke, W (2014) Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy, 49, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, D (2020) The ‘embarrassing’ endangered species act: Beyond collective rights for species. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 45, 1.Google Scholar
Weiler, AM, Zavitz, T (2024) Nothing to hide: How governments justify the adoption of ag‐gag laws. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 62(1), 75–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinrich, R, Strack, M, Neugebauer, F (2020) Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in Germany. Meat Science, 162, 107924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willett, W, Rockström, J, Loken, B et al. (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynes, S, Nicholas, KA (2017) The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaraska, M (2016) Meathooked: The History and Science of Our 2.5-million-year Obsession with Meat. Basic Books.Google 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.