IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/canjag/v70y2022i3p203-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why did China's cost‐reduction‐oriented policies in food safety governance fail? The collective action dilemma perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Yiqing Su
  • Hailong Yu
  • Menglin Wang
  • Xinqi Li
  • Yanyan Li

Abstract

Consumer participation plays an important role in improving food safety. Current research shows that reducing associated costs can promote consumer participation; however, the cost‐reduction‐oriented policies adopted by the Chinese government has had little impact on consumer participation. This study explores the reasons for the failure of the Chinese cost‐reduction‐oriented policies in food safety governance from the perspective of the collective action dilemma. Building upon previous work and using data from an online survey of 1229 consumers in China, we use a mediating effect model to examine the causal relationship between the low participation rate and the high participation cost. The results suggest that low consumer participation in food safety governance is due to free‐riding built on the actions of others. The problem with the cost‐reduction‐oriented policies is that they addressed high participation costs, identified by this study as the consequence of non‐participation, but paid little attention to the actual cause – free‐riding. Our research sheds light on the collective action dilemma from a new perspective to understand consumer participation. Assessing the relationship between participation cost, free‐riding, and the actual participation behavior in food safety governance could lead to a new line of theoretical and empirical inquiry for studying collective action in public affairs. La participation des consommateurs joue un rôle important dans l'amélioration de la salubrité des aliments. Les recherches actuelles montrent que la réduction des coûts associés peut favoriser la participation des consommateurs ; cependant, les politiques axées sur la réduction des coûts adoptées par le gouvernement chinois ont eu peu d'impact sur la participation des consommateurs. Cette étude explore les raisons de l'échec des politiques chinoises axées sur la réduction des coûts dans la gouvernance de la salubrité alimentaire du point de vue du dilemme de l'action collective. En nous appuyant sur des travaux antérieurs et en utilisant les données d'une enquête en ligne auprès de 1229 consommateurs en Chine, nous utilisons un modèle d'effet médiateur pour examiner la relation causale entre le faible taux de participation et le coût élevé de la participation. Les résultats suggèrent que la faible participation des consommateurs à la gouvernance de la salubrité des aliments est due au resquillage construit sur les actions des autres. Le problème avec les politiques axées sur la réduction des coûts est qu'elles s'attaquent aux coûts de participation élevés, identifiés par cette étude comme la conséquence de la non‐participation, mais accordent peu d'attention à la cause réelle ‐ le resquillage. Notre recherche met en lumière le dilemme de l'action collective dans une nouvelle perspective pour comprendre la participation des consommateurs. L'évaluation de la relation entre le coût de participation, le resquillage et le comportement de participation réel dans la gouvernance de la salubrité alimentaire pourrait conduire à une nouvelle ligne de recherche théorique et empirique pour étudier l'action collective dans les affaires publiques.

Suggested Citation

  • Yiqing Su & Hailong Yu & Menglin Wang & Xinqi Li & Yanyan Li, 2022. "Why did China's cost‐reduction‐oriented policies in food safety governance fail? The collective action dilemma perspective," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(3), pages 203-217, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:70:y:2022:i:3:p:203-217
    DOI: 10.1111/cjag.12313
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12313
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/cjag.12313?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luigi Cembalo & Alessia Lombardi & Stefano Pascucci & Domenico Dentoni & Giuseppina Migliore & Fabio Verneau & Giorgio Schifani, 2015. "“Rationally Local”: Consumer Participation in Alternative Food Chains," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 330-352, June.
    2. Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa & Bi, Xiang, 2016. "Impact of satisficing behavior in online surveys on consumer preference and welfare estimates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 26-36.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qianqian Zhai & Ali Sher & Qian Li, 2022. "The Impact of Health Risk Perception on Blockchain Traceable Fresh Fruits Purchase Intention in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Nianyu Du & Chuanmei Zhang & Jin Qin & Liangqiang Jiang & Zongshuo Yin & Mo Chen, 2022. "Social Capital, Political Efficacy and Chinese Residents’ Willingness to Participate in Food Safety Governance," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-17, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn & Ben Campbell & Bridget Behe & Charles Hall, 2018. "How do consumer perceptions of “local†production benefits influence their visual attention to state marketing programs?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 390-406, March.
    2. Carlsona, Laura & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Solidarity: a Key Element in Alternative Food Networks," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276872, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, 2020. "Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(1), March.
    4. Isabel Miralles & Domenico Dentoni & Stefano Pascucci, 2017. "Understanding the organization of sharing economy in agri-food systems: evidence from alternative food networks in Valencia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 833-854, December.
    5. Chenyi He & Lijia Shi & Zhifeng Gao & Lisa House, 2020. "The impact of customer ratings on consumer choice of fresh produce: A stated preference experiment approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 359-373, September.
    6. Riccardo Vecchio & Gerarda Caso & Luigi Cembalo & Massimiliano Borrello, 2020. "Is respondents? inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(1), pages 1-18.
    7. Erpeng Wang, 2023. "Revitalize Traditional Agriculture: Chinese Consumer Perception and Preference of “Modern” Organic and Sustainable Traditional Rice Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-12, June.
    8. Aaron M. Shew & Heather A. Snell & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Mary C. Lacity, 2022. "Consumer valuation of blockchain traceability for beef in the United States," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 299-323, March.
    9. Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan, 2021. "Consumers’ Preferences for Eco-labels on Plants: The Influence of Trust and Consequentiality Perceptions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    10. Nguyen, Ly & Gao, Zhifeng & Anderson, James L., 2022. "Regulating menu information: What do consumers care and not care about at casual and fine dining restaurants for seafood consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Clara Cicatiello, 2020. "Alternative food shoppers and the “quantity dilemma”: a study on the determinants of their purchases at alternative markets," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, December.
    12. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    13. Lelia Voinea & Dorin Vicențiu Popescu & Mihaela Bucur & Teodor Mihai Negrea & Răzvan Dina & Calcedonia Enache, 2020. "Reshaping the Traditional Pattern of Food Consumption in Romania through the Integration of Sustainable Diet Principles. A Qualitative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-25, July.
    14. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    15. Xiangping Jia, 2021. "Agro-Food Innovation and Sustainability Transition: A Conceptual Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.
    16. Nancy M. P. Bocken & Ilka Weissbrod & Maria Antikainen, 2021. "Business Model Experimentation for the Circular Economy: Definition and Approaches," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    17. Gao, Zhifeng & Fang, Yingkai, 2018. "Consumer Preference of Away-From-Home Sustainable Salmon Consumption: East vs. West Cultural Comparison," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273827, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Swisher, Marilyn & House, Lisa & Zhao, Xin, 2018. "Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 201-210.
    19. Erpeng Wang & Zhenzhen Liu & Zhifeng Gao & Qin Wen & Xianhui Geng, 2022. "Consumer preferences for agricultural product brands in an E‐commerce environment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 312-327, April.
    20. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Jiang, Yuan, 2018. "Marketing Opportunities for Organic Transitional Certification," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274072, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:canjag:v:70:y:2022:i:3:p:203-217. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caefmea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.