IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/apecpp/v44y2022i1p253-272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blockchain‐based traceability and demand for U.S. beef in China

Author

Listed:
  • Wen Lin
  • David L. Ortega
  • Danielle Ufer
  • Vincenzina Caputo
  • Titus Awokuse

Abstract

Amid stringent traceability requirements and a nearly 14‐year ban, the U.S. beef industry is rebuilding its market presence in China. Blockchain technology offers a responsive means of meeting Chinese import traceability requirements while also addressing consumers' food safety concerns. We evaluate Chinese demand for U.S. beef and blockchain‐based traceability and find that a sizeable segment of the market (37%) is willing to pay a premium for U.S. beef that is traceable using blockchains. Results indicate that investments in traceability systems that utilize blockchain technology may be an effective way for producers to capture a significant market share in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Wen Lin & David L. Ortega & Danielle Ufer & Vincenzina Caputo & Titus Awokuse, 2022. "Blockchain‐based traceability and demand for U.S. beef in China," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 253-272, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:apecpp:v:44:y:2022:i:1:p:253-272
    DOI: 10.1002/aepp.13135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13135
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/aepp.13135?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. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    2. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    3. Hans G. P. Jansen & John Pender & Amy Damon & Willem Wielemaker & Rob Schipper, 2006. "Policies for sustainable development in the hillside areas of Honduras: a quantitative livelihoods approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 34(2), pages 141-153, March.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    5. Sébastien Pouliot & Daniel A. Sumner, 2008. "Traceability, Liability, and Incentives for Food Safety and Quality," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(1), pages 15-27.
    6. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    7. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    8. Jill E. Hobbs, 2004. "Information asymmetry and the role of traceability systems," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 397-415.
    9. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    10. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    11. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    12. Alejandro Caparrós & José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos, 2008. "Would You Choose Your Preferred Option? Comparing Choice and Recoded Ranking Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(3), pages 843-855.
    13. Lusk, Jayson L. & Marsh, Thomas L. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Fox, John A., 2001. "Wholesale Demand For Usda Quality Graded Boxed Beef And Effects Of Seasonality," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Petrovici, D.A. & Gorton, M., 2005. "An evaluation of the importance of subsistence food production for assessments of poverty and policy targeting: Evidence from Romania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 205-223, April.
    15. Liu, Hongbo & Parton, Kevin A. & Zhou, Zhang-Yue & Cox, Rod, 2009. "At-home meat consumption in China: an empirical study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    16. Hongbo Liu & Kevin A. Parton & Zhang-Yue Zhou & Rod Cox, 2009. "At-home meat consumption in China: an empirical study ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 485-501, October.
    17. Jansen, Hans G. P. & Pender, John L. & Damon, Amy & Schipper, Rob, 2006. "Rural development policies and sustainable land use in the hillside areas of Honduras: a quantitative livelihoods approach," Research reports 147, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    19. Hansen, James & Marchant, Mary A. & Tuan, Francis & Somwaru, Agapi, 2017. "U.S. Agricultural Exports to China Increased Rapidly Making China the Number One Market," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), June.
    20. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    21. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    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. Stefan Craß & Alexander Eisl & Nedim Begic & Romana Polt, 2022. "Die Rolle moderner Technologien, insbesondere Blockchain, in der Lieferkettenverantwortung," FIW Research Reports series VIII-006, FIW.
    3. Alba J. Collart & Elizabeth Canales, 2022. "How might broad adoption of blockchain‐based traceability impact the U.S. fresh produce supply chain?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 219-236, March.

    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. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    2. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. 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.
    4. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    5. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    6. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    7. Yang, Yang & Hobbs, Jill E. & Natcher, David C., 2020. "Assessing consumer willingness to pay for Arctic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Ozge Dinc‐Cavlak & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2021. "Comparing the willingness to pay through three elicitation mechanisms: An experimental evidence for organic egg product," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 782-803, October.
    9. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    10. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    14. 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).
    15. Reithmayer, Corrina & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Look at that! – The effect pictures have on consumer preferences for in ovo gender determination as an alternative to culling male chicks," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 298419, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    16. Glenn W. Harrison, 2014. "Real choices and hypothetical choices," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 10, pages 236-254, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Li, Xiaogu & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Clark, Christopher D. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2015. "Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Non-taste Attributes in Beef Products," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196719, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?," DARE Discussion Papers 1801, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    19. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(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:wly:apecpp:v:44:y:2022:i:1:p:253-272. 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://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2040-5804 .

    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.