IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jagaec/v46y2014i01p107-124_00.html

Predicting State-Wide Votes on Ballot Initiatives to Ban Battery Cages and Gestation Crates

Author

Listed:
  • Smithson, Katie
  • Corbin, Max
  • Lusk, Jayson L.
  • Norwood, F. Bailey

Abstract

After California voters decided in a state initiative to ban gestation crates and battery cages, some are asking whether other states will host similar initiatives and if they will pass. This study addresses this question by using voting data in California to predict how voters in other states would respond to a similar initiative. Results suggest that a number of states allow such initiatives and possess a demographic profile favorable to the initiative's passage. However, because these states host only a small portion of the livestock population, the impact of such initiatives on the well-being of farm animals is questionable.

Suggested Citation

  • Smithson, Katie & Corbin, Max & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2014. "Predicting State-Wide Votes on Ballot Initiatives to Ban Battery Cages and Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 107-124, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jagaec:v:46:y:2014:i:01:p:107-124_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1074070800000663/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ufer, Danielle, "undated". "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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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).
    5. Albert Boaitey, 2024. "Farm animal welfare regulatory preferences and food choice: survey evidence from the US," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-23, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., . "Cow Welfare in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Supply," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H7 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture

    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:cup:jagaec:v:46:y:2014:i:01:p:107-124_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aae .

    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.