IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gadadp/260775.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: Ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken

Author

Listed:
  • Sonntag, Winnie
  • Spiller, Achim

Abstract

Im Jahr 2014 hat das WTO-Schlichtungsgremium (Appellate Body) einen vielbeachteten Schiedsspruch zum Importverbot der EU für Robbenprodukte getätigt. Das verhängte Importverbot für Robbenprodukte wurde auf Grundlage des Art. XX (a) GATT grundsätzlich gerechtfertigt. Damit wurde erstmals der Schutz der öffentlichen Sittlichkeit als Begründung für eine tierschutzbezogene Handelsbeschränkung anerkannt. Diese Entscheidung eröffnet als Präzedenzfall Optionen für supranationale Maßnahmen für weitere Produkte, deren Herstellungsprozess auf moralische Bedenken der Gesellschaft trifft. Denkbar wären hier z. B. eine verpflichtende Kennzeichnung bzw. ein Importverbot für Produkte aus besonders tierwohlkritischen Produktionsformen. Allerdings bleibt in der Forschung bisher weitgehend unklar, wann eine Gefährdung der sittlichen Ordnung besteht. Der vorliegende Beitrag thematisiert deshalb die Frage, wie die moralischen Bedenken (moral concerns) einer Gesellschaft gemessen werden können. Hierzu wird eine Messmethode konzeptionell vorgestellt, die eine valide und reliable Messung der moralischen Bedenken einer Gesellschaft erlaubt. Das Ziel ist ein auf WTO-Ebene einsetzbares, wissenschaftlich fundiertes und vertrauenswürdiges Instrument (Scale) zur Messung des Besorgnisgrades von Gesellschaften in Bezug auf Tierschutzfragen zu entwickeln. In 2014, the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body accepted the EU import ban on seal products. The EU banned the importation and sale of seal products under the justification of Article XX (a) GATT. Thereby, the EU import ban is the first WTO case in which the Appellate Body accepted a trade restriction based on the moral concerns of EU citizens with regard to the inhuman killing of seals. This discussion may offer opportunities for mandatory labelling or import bans on other products from production systems which violate public ethical beliefs and morality. However, in recent research there is a lack of clarity in the determination of when public morality is seriously endangered and needs to be protected. Therefore, the present paper deals with the question of how to measure the moral concerns of a society in a valid and reliable manner. Although it is important to identify and verify if public morality is really compromised, it must also be ensured that this instrument is not just used as a form of protectionism. The paper introduces a measuring method which allows a reliable and valid measurement of public concern within a particular society. The objective of this work is to develop a trustworthy WTO-wide science-based tool (a scale) for the measurement of the degree of public concern with respect to animal welfare topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonntag, Winnie & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: Ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gadadp:260775
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.260775
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/260775/files/DARE%20Diskussionspapier_Sonntag%26Spiller_Vorschlag%20MCS.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/260775/files/DARE%20Diskussionspapier_Sonntag%26Spiller_Vorschlag%20MCS.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.260775?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Celsi, Richard L & Olson, Jerry C, 1988. "The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 210-224, September.
    2. Biermann, Frank, 1999. "Internationale Umweltverträge im Welthandelsrecht: Zur ökologischen Reform der Welthandelsorganisation anläßlich der geplanten Millenniumsrunde," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship Environmental Policy FS II 99-403, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    3. Voss, Julian & Spiller, Achim & Enneking, Ulrich, 2009. "Zur Akzeptanz von gentechnisch verändertem Saatgut in der deutschen Landwirtschaft," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 58(03), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Sykes, Katie, 2014. "Sealing animal welfare into the GATT exceptions: the international dimension of animal welfare in WTO disputes," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 471-498, July.
    5. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    6. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    7. Barbara J. Kanninen, 1993. "Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(2), pages 138-146.
    8. Grimsrud, Kristine M. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L. & Wahl, Thomas I., 2002. "Consumer Attitudes Towards Genetically Modified Foods In Norway," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Robin, Donald P. & Reidenbach, R. Eric & Forrest, P. J., 1996. "The perceived importance of an ethical issue as an influence on the ethical decision-making of ad managers," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 17-28, January.
    10. Levy, Philip I. & Regan, Donald H., 2015. "EC–Seal Products: Seals and Sensibilities (TBT Aspects of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports)," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 337-379, April.
    11. Philip I. Levy & Donald H. Regan, 2014. "EC – Seal Products: Seals and Sensibilities (TBT Aspects of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports)," RSCAS Working Papers 2014/108, European University Institute.
    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. Winnie Isabel Sonntag & Achim Spiller, 2018. "Measuring Public Concerns? Developing a Moral Concerns Scale Regarding Non-Product Related Process and Production Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Sonntag, Winnie Isabel & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "Messung moralischer Besorgnis gegenüber Prozessstandards am Fallbeispiel der Käfighaltung von Legehennen - Skalenentwicklung und -validierung," 57th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 13-15, 2017 261992, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    3. Schulze, Maureen & Risius, Antje & Spiller, Achim, 2018. "Heimliche Stallaufnahmen aus gesellschaftlicher Sicht im Wechselspiel zwischen Landwirtschaft, Tierschutzorganisationen und staatlichen Kontrollmechanismen," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(4), December.

    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. Mirzobobo Yormirzoev & Ramona Teuber & Daniil Baranov, 2018. "Is Tajikistan a Potential Market for Genetically Modified Potatoes?," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 216-226.
    2. Winnie Isabel Sonntag & Achim Spiller, 2018. "Measuring Public Concerns? Developing a Moral Concerns Scale Regarding Non-Product Related Process and Production Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Sonntag, Winnie Isabel & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "Messung moralischer Besorgnis gegenüber Prozessstandards am Fallbeispiel der Käfighaltung von Legehennen - Skalenentwicklung und -validierung," 57th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 13-15, 2017 261992, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    4. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    5. Ian Langford & Ian Bateman & Hugh Langford, 1996. "A multilevel modelling approach to triple-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(3), pages 197-211, April.
    6. Cheng-Te Lin & Yu-Sheng Huang & Lu-Wen Liao & Chung-Te Ting, 2020. "Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay to Reduce Health Risks of Contracting Dengue Fever," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Dmitriy Li & Meenakshi Rishi & Jeong Hwan Bae, 2023. "Regional Differences in Willingness to Pay for Mitigation of Air Pollution from Coal-Fired Power Plants in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.
    8. Vossler, Christian A., 2003. "Multiple bounded discrete choice contingent valuation: parametric and nonparametric welfare estimation and a comparison to the payment card," MPRA Paper 38867, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Lin, William W. & Somwaru, Agapi & Tuan, Francis C. & Huang, Jikun & Bai, Junfei, 2005. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Biotech Foods in China," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19569, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Samal Kaliyeva & Francisco Jose Areal & Yiorgos Gadanakis, 2021. "Would Kazakh Citizens Support a Milk Co-Operative System?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Jill J. McCluskey & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Hiromi Ouchi & Thomas I. Wahl, 2005. "Bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Japan: consumers' food safety perceptions and willingness to pay for tested beef," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(2), pages 197-209, June.
    12. Delmond, Anthony R. & McCluskey, Jill J. & Yormirzoev, Mirzobobo & Rogova, Maria A., 2018. "Russian consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 91-100.
    13. Jung-Eun Kim & Jungsung Yeo, 2010. "Valuation of Consumers’ Personal Information: A South Korean Example," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306, September.
    14. Chen, Junhong & Ortega, David L. & Wang, Hong Holly, 2018. "Does Animal Welfare Matter to Consumers in Emerging Countries? Evidence from China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274069, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    16. Zapata, Samuel D. & Carpio, Carlos E., . "Distribution-Free Methods to Estimate Willingness to Pay Models Using Discrete Response Valuation Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(1).
    17. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.
    18. Bown,Chad P. & Crowley,Meredith A & Bown,Chad P. & Crowley,Meredith A, 2016. "The empirical landscape of trade policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7620, The World Bank.
    19. Kwideok Han & Jeffrey Vitale & Yong-Geon Lee & Inbae Ji, 2022. "Measuring the Economic Value of the Negative Externality of Livestock Malodor in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, August.
    20. Mamadzhanov, Alisher & McCluskey, Jill J. & Li, Tongzhe, 2019. "Willingness to pay for a second-generation bioethanol: A case study of Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 464-474.

    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:ags:gadadp:260775. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iagoede.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.