IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v130y2025ics0306919224001829.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to incentivize peanut producers to adopt post-harvest aflatoxin control measures: A field experiment in Haiti

Author

Listed:
  • Jacques, Phendy
  • Azima, Stevens
  • Doyon, Maurice

Abstract

Aflatoxin contamination in peanuts represents a significant public health concern in many developing countries, including Haiti, a low-income country. Although simple post-harvest mitigation measures exist, their adoption by Haitian farmers remains limited. This study assesses the willingness to accept (WTA) of peanut producers in Haiti to implement post-harvest measures, using a reversed Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) auction. It also tests the effect on WTA of a conditional market access. For one group the research project commits to purchase peanuts at a predetermined price if aflatoxin levels meet a maximum of 10 parts per billion, while another group receives unconditional market access at the same predetermined price. Moreover, Haitian supermarket consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) a premium for a local peanut butter (mamba) certified to meet aflatoxin standards is explored. Results indicate that conditional market access generates higher WTA. Haitian supermarket consumers show strong interest in certified peanut butter, with a declared premium of 21.1 % over the market price of a 16-ounce jar of non-certified peanut butter. If we consider intermediary margins as high as 86 % of the final consumer price—well above the current 68 % reported in previous studies—as well as for a potential hypothetical bias as high as two thirds of the stated WTP, this premium is sufficient to incentivize Haitian peanut producers, measured by their observed WTA. Thus, a market solution to the aflatoxin problem in Haiti seems plausible for supermarket consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacques, Phendy & Azima, Stevens & Doyon, Maurice, 2025. "How to incentivize peanut producers to adopt post-harvest aflatoxin control measures: A field experiment in Haiti," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:130:y:2025:i:c:s0306919224001829
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919224001829
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102771?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Magnan, Nicholas & Hoffmann, Vivian & Opoku, Nelson & Gajate Garrido, Gissele & Kanyam, Daniel Akwasi, 2021. "Information, technology, and market rewards: Incentivizing aflatoxin control in Ghana," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Sanou, Awa & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Kerr, John, 2021. "Introducing an aflatoxin-safe labeling program in complex food supply chains: Evidence from a choice experiment in Nigeria," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. Özdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Hauber, A. Brett, 2009. "Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 894-901, July.
    4. Channa, Hira & Chen, Amy Z. & Pina, Patricia & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob & Stein, Daniel, 2019. "What drives smallholder farmers’ willingness to pay for a new farm technology? Evidence from an experimental auction in Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 64-71.
    5. Tessa Bold & Selene Ghisolfi & Frances Nsonzi & Jakob Svensson, 2022. "Market Access and Quality Upgrading: Evidence from Four Field Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(8), pages 2518-2552, August.
    6. Corrigan, Jay R. & Rousu, Matthew C., 2008. "Testing Whether Field Auction Experiments Are Demand Revealing in Practice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(2).
    7. Vivian Hoffmann & Christine M. Moser & Timothy J. Herrman, 2021. "Demand for Aflatoxin‐Safe Maize in Kenya: Dynamic Response to Price and Advertising," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 275-295, January.
    8. Kevin J. Boyle & Richard C. Bishop & Michael P. Welsh, 1985. "Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 62(2), pages 188-194.
    9. 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.
    10. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    11. repec:ken:wpaper:0804 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Bull, Charles & Courty, Pascal & Doyon, Maurice & Rondeau, Daniel, 2019. "Failure of the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism in inexperienced subjects: New tests of the game form misconception hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 235-253.
    13. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    14. repec:feb:framed:0078 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Grace, Delia & Unnevehr, Laurian, 2013. "Aflatoxins: Finding solutions for improved food safety," 2020 vision focus 20, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    2. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is," Monash Economics Working Papers 42-16, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    3. Apurba Shee & Carlo Azzarri & Beliyou Haile, 2019. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    5. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field," Monash Economics Working Papers 43-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    8. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    9. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    10. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    11. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    12. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2007:i:1:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    14. Courtney Bir & Nicole Olynk Widmar, 2020. "Consistently biased: documented consistency in self-reported holiday healthfulness behaviors and associated social desirability bias," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    16. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2017. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: Evidence on the Effects of Correctives from a Large Field Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 777-796, November.
    17. Craig D. Broadbent, 2014. "Evaluating mitigation and calibration techniques for hypothetical bias in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(12), pages 1831-1848, December.
    18. John List & Michael Price, 2013. "Using Field Experiments in Environmental and Resource Economics," Artefactual Field Experiments 00447, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. Özdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Hauber, A. Brett, 2009. "Hypothetical bias, cheap talk, and stated willingness to pay for health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 894-901, July.
    20. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    21. Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. & Ximing Wu & Robert G. Brummett, 2007. "On the Use of Cheap Talk in New Product Valuation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9.

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:130:y:2025:i:c:s0306919224001829. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.