IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v62y2024i3d10.1007_s00355-023-01495-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Animals and social welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Romain Espinosa

    (CNRS, CIRED)

Abstract

I propose a framework to evaluate the social gains from policies regarding animals. The model considers both the welfare of animals and humans. The gains in animal welfare are estimated by considering the violations of the animals’ fundamental freedoms weighted for each species. I apply this framework to twenty policy proposals targeting wild, domestic, farmed, and laboratory animals. Although the policies benefit from widespread popular support in France (the annual willingnesses-to-pay range between 15 and 39 Euros per person per year), I show that they have very heterogeneous impacts on animal welfare (valued at between 0.013 and 3618 Euros per person per year). I further show that humans’ willingness-to-pay for policies improving animal welfare is a poor predictor of the effective impact on animal welfare of these policies. I conclude that it is essential to value animal welfare per se in cost-benefit analyses in order to determine the set of welfare-increasing policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Romain Espinosa, 2024. "Animals and social welfare," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 62(3), pages 465-504, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:62:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s00355-023-01495-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-023-01495-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-023-01495-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-023-01495-x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannesson, Magnus & Jonsson, Bengt & Borgquist, Lars, 1991. "Willingness to pay for antihypertensive therapy -- results of a Swedish pilot study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 461-473.
    2. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    3. Luiz Flavio Andrade & Kristina Ludwig & Juan Manuel Ramos Goni & Mark Oppe & Gérard Pouvourville, 2020. "A French Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 413-425, April.
    4. William Fonta & H. Ichoku & Jane Kabubo-Mariara, 2010. "The effect of protest zeros on estimates of willingness to pay in healthcare contingent valuation analysis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 225-237, July.
    5. Carlier, Alexis & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 14(1), pages 113-152, April.
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    8. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(3), pages 321-344, September.
    9. Sen, Amartya K, 1979. "Personal Utilities and Public Judgements: Or What's Wrong with Welfare Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 89(355), pages 537-558, September.
    10. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    11. Giles Atkinson & Ian Bateman & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Recent advances in the valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 22-47, Spring.
    12. Marc Fleurbaey & Martin Van der Linden, 2021. "Fair Social Ordering, Egalitarianism, and Animal Welfare," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 466-491, November.
    13. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    14. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    15. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1992. "Pigs and Guinea Pigs: A Note on the Ethics of Animal Exploitation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(415), pages 1345-1369, November.
    16. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2012. "Self-image and valuation of moral goods: Stated versus actual willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 879-891.
    17. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2018. "Animal Welfare and Social Decisions: Is It Time to Take Bentham Seriously?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 90-103.
    18. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    19. Nunes, Paulo A. L. D. & Schokkaert, Erik, 2003. "Identifying the warm glow effect in contingent valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 231-245, March.
    20. David K. Whynes & Jane L. Wolstenholme & Emma Frew, 2004. "Evidence of range bias in contingent valuation payment scales," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 183-190, February.
    21. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    22. Georgia J. Mason & Jonathan Cooper & Catherine Clarebrough, 2001. "Frustrations of fur-farmed mink," Nature, Nature, vol. 410(6824), pages 35-36, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Romain Espinosa, 2024. "Animals and Social Welfare," Post-Print halshs-04369311, HAL.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Börger, Tobias & Hanley, Nick & Meginnis, Keila & Ndebele, Tom & Siyal, Ghamz E. Ali & Beaumont, Nicola & de Vries, Frans P., 2024. "Consequences of omitting non-lethal wildlife impacts from stated preference scenarios," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    5. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    6. Waranan Tantiwat & Christopher Gan & Wei Yang, 2021. "The Estimation of the Willingness to Pay for Air-Quality Improvement in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    7. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    8. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    9. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    10. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2024. "Beyond anthropocentrism in agricultural and resource economics," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 68(3), pages 541-566, July.
    11. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.
    12. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke D. Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2022. "Reducing bias in preference elicitation for environmental public goods," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 280-308, April.
    13. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    14. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2004. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare - transportation of farm animals to slaughter versus the use of mobile abattoirs," Working Papers in Economics 149, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Nicolas Treich, 2022. "The Dasgupta Review and the Problem of Anthropocentrism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(4), pages 973-997, December.
    16. Stavroula Tsigou & Stathis Klonaris, 2018. "Factors affecting farmers’ WTP for innovative fertilizer against soil salinity," Working Papers 2018-3, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    17. Christian A. Vossler & Ewa Zawojska, 2018. "Toward a better understanding of elicitation effects in stated preference studies," Working Papers 2018-01, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    18. Treich, Nicolas & Espinosa, Romain, 2024. "The Animal-Welfare Levy," TSE Working Papers 24-1503, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    19. David A. Comerford & Nick Hanley, 2017. "The External Validity of Consequential Stated Preference Studies: a comment," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-02, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    20. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).

    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:spr:sochwe:v:62:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s00355-023-01495-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.