IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midasp/11758.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Welfare Consequences Of Certified Labeling For Credence Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Hoehn, John P.
  • Deaton, Brady J., Jr.

Abstract

Certified labeling for credence attributes is examined using the concepts of pooled and separating equilibria. The analysis addresses a latent credence good demand that differs from a conventional good demand by willingness to pay for the credence characteristic. Third-party certified labeling vertically differentiates the two products and a two separate markets replace a single pooled market. Market outcomes are examined theoretically and with empirical simulations. Costless labeling is net welfare improving, but impacts are highly asymmetric. Credence producers gain largely at the expense of conventional producers. Costly labeling may reduce welfare even with rather modest labeling costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoehn, John P. & Deaton, Brady J., Jr., 2004. "The Welfare Consequences Of Certified Labeling For Credence Attributes," Staff Paper Series 11758, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:11758
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.11758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/11758/files/sp04-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.11758?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. Cook, Roberta L., 2001. "Emerging Trade Practices And Trends In The Fruit And Vegetable Markets," Agricultural Outlook Forum 2001 33077, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Outlook Forum.
    2. Calvin, Linda & Cook, Roberta L. & Denbaly, Mark & Dimitri, Carolyn & Glaser, Lewrene K. & Handy, Charles R. & Jekanowski, Mark D. & Kaufman, Phillip R. & Krissoff, Barry & Thompson, Gary D. & Thornsb, 2001. "U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade Practices, Trends, and Issues," Agricultural Economic Reports 33915, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian & Hicks, Robert L., 2002. "Can Eco-Labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 339-359, May.
    4. Giannakas, Konstantinos & Fulton, Murray, 2002. "Consumption effects of genetic modification: what if consumers are right?," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 97-109, August.
    5. Jeffrey R. Blend & Eileen O. van Ravenswaay, 1999. "Measuring Consumer Demand for Ecolabeled Apples," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1072-1077.
    6. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    7. Caswell, Julie A., 1998. "How Labeling of Safety and Process Attributes Affects Markets for Food," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 151-158, October.
    8. Buzby, Jean C. & Ready, Richard C. & Skees, Jerry R., 1995. "Contingent Valuation In Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study Of A Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Brown, Mark G. & Lee, Jonq-Ying, 2002. "Restrictions On The Effects Of Preference Variables In The Rotterdam Model," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-10, April.
    10. Huang, Kuo S. & Lin, Biing-Hwan, 2000. "Estimation of Food Demand Nutrient Elasticities from household Survey Data," Technical Bulletins 184370, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. Huang, Kuo S. & Lin, Biing-Hwan, 2000. "Estimation Of Food Demand And Nutrient Elasticities From Household Survey Data," Technical Bulletins 33579, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    12. Konstantinos Giannakas, 2002. "Information Asymmetries and Consumption Decisions in Organic Food Product Markets," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(1), pages 35-50, March.
    13. John M. Crespi & St)phan Marette, 2001. "How Should Food Safety Certification be Financed?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 852-861.
    14. Brown, Mark G. & Lee, Jonq-Ying, 2002. "Restrictions on the Effects of Preference Variables in the Rotterdam Model," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 17-26, April.
    15. McCluskey, Jill J., 2000. "A Game Theoretic Approach To Organic Foods: An Analysis Of Asymmetric Information And Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-9, April.
    16. Greene, Catherine R., 2001. "U.S. Organic Farming Emerges in the 1990s: Adoption of Certified Systems," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33777, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Hoehn, John P. & Deaton, Brady J., Jr., 2003. "Information As A Double-Edged Sword: The Economic And Welfare Consequences Of Certified Labeling For Credence Attributes," Staff Paper Series 11762, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Giovanni Anania & Rosanna Nisticò, 2004. "Public Regulation as a Substitute for Trust in Quality Food Markets: What if the Trust Substitute cannot be Fully Trusted?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 681-701, December.
    3. Crespi, John M. & Marette, Stephan, 2003. "Some Economic Implications Of Public Labeling," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Olivier Bonroy & Christos Constantatos, 2015. "On the Economics of Labels: How Their Introduction Affects the Functioning of Markets and the Welfare of All Participants," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 239-259.
    5. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.
    6. Athearn, Kevin R., 2003. "Can Eco-Labeling Do More Harm Than Good? A Comparative Statics Analysis," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35105, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Douadia Bougherara & Virginie Piguet, 2008. "Marchés avec coûts d'information sur la qualité des biens : une application aux produits écolabellisés," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(1), pages 77-96.
    8. Zago, Angelo M. & Pick, Daniel H., 2004. "Labeling Policies in Food Markets: Private Incentives, Public Intervention, and Welfare Effects," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Chung, Rebecca H. & Lee, Jonq-Ying & Brown, Mark G., 1998. "Incorporating Nutrients in Food Demand Analysis," Research papers 52824, Florida Department of Citrus.
    10. Etilé, Fabrice & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2013. "Corporate social responsibility and the economics of consumer social responsibility," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 94(2).
    11. Gabriele Jahn & Matthias Schramm & Achim Spiller, 2005. "The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 53-73, December.
    12. McCluskey, Jill J., 2000. "A Game Theoretic Approach to Organic Foods: An Analysis of Asymmetric Information and Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 1-9, April.
    13. Baker, Andrew & Smyth, Stuart, 2010. "Managing Opportunism in Value-Added Supply Chains:," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 187979, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    14. Giannakas, Konstantinos & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2003. "Agricultural Biotechnology And Organic Agriculture: National Organic Standards, Labeling And Second-Generation Of Gm Products," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22063, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. John Crespi & Stéphan Marette, 2003. "“Does Contain” vs. “Does Not Contain”: Does it Matter which GMO Label is Used?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 327-344, November.
    16. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2010. "Ecolabeling, consumers' preferences and taxation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2202-2212, September.
    17. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Schilizzi, Steven G.M., 2015. "Quality signaling through certification in developing countries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 105-121.
    18. Holland, Steven, 2015. "Lending Credence: Motivation, Trust and Organic Certification," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205192, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A. & Donath, Holger & Asche, Frank, 2001. "Measuring Consumer Preferences For Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-20, July.
    20. Ivanova, Daniela, 2018. "Сертификацията – Инструмент За „Зелени“ Комуникации В Глобалната Търговия [Certification - a tool for “green” communications in global trade]," MPRA Paper 96038, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing;

    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:ags:midasp:11758. 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/damsuus.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.