IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/246252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Putting the Chicken Before the Egg Price: An Ex Post Analysis of California's Battery Cage Ban

Author

Listed:
  • Malone, Trey
  • Lusk, Jayson L.

Abstract

California legislation outlawed the use and sale of battery cages for egg-laying hens in 2015. While a number of ex ante studies projected the effects of the housing prohibitions, the ultimate ex post effects are unknown. Using a price series reported by the USDA, we study the movement of daily egg prices in California and the United States before and after the law’s implementation. Depending on the methods used, we find that Californians now pay between $0.48 and $1.08 more for a dozen eggs. The estimates suggest an annual reduction in California consumer surplus of between $400 million and $850 million.

Suggested Citation

  • Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2016. "Putting the Chicken Before the Egg Price: An Ex Post Analysis of California's Battery Cage Ban," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:246252
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.246252
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/246252/files/JARE_September2016__10_Malone_518-532.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.246252?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. Allender, William J. & Richards, Timothy J., 2010. "Consumer Impact of Animal Welfare Regulation in the California Poultry Industry," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Okrent, Abigail M. & Alston, Julian M., 2011. "Demand for Food in the United States: A Review of Literature, Evaluation of Previous Estimates, and Presentation of New Estimates of Demand," Monographs, University of California, Davis, Giannini Foundation, number 251908, December.
    3. Heng, Yan & Hanawa Peterson, Hikaru & Li, Xianghong, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes toward Farm-Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    4. F. Bailey Norwood, 2012. "The Private Provision of Animal-Friendly Eggs and Pork," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(2), pages 509-514.
    5. Sumner, Daniel A. & Matthews, William A. & Mench, Joy A. & Rosen-Molina, J. Thomas, 2010. "The Economics of Regulations on Hen Housing in California," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 429-438, August.
    6. Terry L. Kastens & Gary W. Brester, 1996. "Model Selection and Forecasting Ability of Theory-Constrained Food Demand Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(2), pages 301-312.
    7. Lusk Jayson L, 2010. "The Effect of Proposition 2 on the Demand for Eggs in California," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    9. Carlos Arnade & Daniel Pick & Mark Gehlhar, 2005. "Testing and incorporating seasonal structures into demand models for fruit," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(s3), pages 527-532, November.
    10. Chang, Jae Bong & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2010. "The Price of Happy Hens: A Hedonic Analysis of Retail Egg Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2009. "The Farm Animal Welfare Debate," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1-7.
    12. Bagwell, Laurie Simon & Bernheim, B Douglas, 1996. "Veblen Effects in a Theory of Conspicuous Consumption," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 349-373, June.
    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. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Rice, Emma D., 2020. "Understanding the U.S. Publics’ Voting on Animal Welfare and Genetically Modified Organism Labeling Ballot Initiatives," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Nathan Pelletier & Maurice Doyon & Bruce Muirhead & Tina Widowski & Jodey Nurse-Gupta & Michelle Hunniford, 2018. "Sustainability in the Canadian Egg Industry—Learning from the Past, Navigating the Present, Planning for the Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-24, September.
    3. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Sohae Eve Oh & Tomislav Vukina, 2018. "Substitutability between organic and conventional poultry products and organic price premiums," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 20(1), pages 75-92.
    5. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    6. Stone, Janine & Costanigro, Marco & Goemans, Christopher, 2018. "Public Opinion on ColoradoWater Rights Transfers: Are Policy Preferences Consistent with Concerns over Impacts?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    7. Ufer, Danielle, 2022. "State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries: An Overview," USDA Miscellaneous 333544, United States Department of Agriculture.
    8. Shon M. Ferguson, 2023. "Unconstrained trade: The impact of EU cage bans on exports of poultry‐keeping equipment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 435-449, June.
    9. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Consumer preferences for cage‐free eggs and impacts of retailer pledges," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(2), pages 129-148, April.
    11. Marco J. W. Kotschedoff & Max J. Pachali, 2020. "Higher Minimum Quality Standards and Redistributive Effects on Consumer Welfare," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 253-280, January.
    12. Brorsen, B. Wade, 2017. "2016 WAEA Presidential Address: Comments on Agricultural Economics Research," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-9, January.
    13. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Schaefer, K. Aleks, 2022. "Resolving the reality gap in farm regulation voting models," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    14. Christina Biedny & Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "Exploring Polarization in US Food Policy Opinions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 434-454, September.
    15. Kent D. Messer & Marco Costanigro & Harry M. Kaiser, 2017. "Labeling Food Processes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 407-427.
    16. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    17. Nicolas Treich, 2018. "Veganomics : vers une approche économique du véganisme ?," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(4), pages 3-48.
    18. repec:ags:aaea22:335949 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Sohae Eve Oh & Tomislav Vukina, 2022. "The price of cage‐free eggs: Social cost of Proposition 12 in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1293-1326, August.
    20. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    21. Keller, Andrew & Boland, Michael & Çakır, Metin, 2020. "The Impact of an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage on the Egg Industry," Staff Papers 303916, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    22. Malone, Trey & Schaefer, K. Aleks & Lusk, Jayson L., 2021. "Unscrambling U.S. egg supply chains amid COVID-19," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).

    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. Tomislav Vukina & Danijel Nestic, 2020. "Paying for animal welfare? A hedonic analysis of egg prices," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 613-630, October.
    2. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    3. Oh, Sohae & Vukina, Tomislav, 2020. "Quantifying the Welfare Effects of Laying-hen Cage Ban," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304408, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Szilvia Molnár & László Szőllősi, 2020. "Sustainability and Quality Aspects of Different Table Egg Production Systems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    5. Heng, Yan & Peterson, Hikaru, 2014. "Estimating Demand for Differentiated Eggs Using Scanner Data," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170457, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Heng, Yan & Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa & Li, Xianghong, 2012. "Consumers’ Preferences for Shell Eggs Regarding Laying Hen Welfare," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124592, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Francisco Alex J. & Bruce Amanda S. & Crespi John M. & Lusk Jayson L. & McFadden Brandon & Bruce Jared M. & Aupperle Robin L. & Lim Seung-Lark, 2015. "Are Consumers as Constrained as Hens are Confined? Brain Activations and Behavioral Choices after Informational Influence," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 113-119, January.
    8. Heng, Yan & Hanawa Peterson, Hikaru & Li, Xianghong, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes toward Farm-Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    9. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2018. "Demand for farm animal welfare and producer implications: Results from a field experiment in Michigan," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 74-81.
    11. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    12. Cao, Ying & Chen, Chen & Cranfield, John & Widowski, Tina, 2017. "Market Responses to Information Conveying Mixed Messages – Prediction of Informational Impacts on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Eggs from Welfare Enhanced Cage Systems using Discrete Choice Experime," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258545, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Sohae Eve Oh & Tomislav Vukina, 2022. "The price of cage‐free eggs: Social cost of Proposition 12 in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1293-1326, August.
    15. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    16. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2015. "What Happens When Food Marketers Require Restrictive Farming Practices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1021-1043.
    18. Kaminski, Danielle M. & Caputo, Vincenzina & McKendree, Melissa G.S., . "The US Public’s Attitudes on Animal and Worker Welfare in the Dairy and Poultry Industries," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(1).
    19. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    20. Muhammad, Andrew & McPhail, Lihong Lu & Kiawu, James, 2012. "Do U.S. Cotton Subsidies Affect Competing Exporters? An Analysis of Import Demand in China," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(2), pages 1-15, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy;

    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:jlaare:246252. 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/waeaaea.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.