IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v39y2012i2p189-212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Speciesism, altruism and the economics of animal welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Jayson L. Lusk
  • F. Bailey Norwood

Abstract

Economists have long relied on utilitarian principles in carrying out cost–benefit analysis, but such utilitarianism is typically limited to the well-being of humans. Some prominent philosophers have argued such an approach is unjustifiably speciesist, but what are the consequences of including animal well-being in cost–benefit analysis? This paper considers this question in the context of human altruism towards animals in which people's concerns for the well-being of animals create an externality. After uncovering some conceptual challenges involved in carrying out cost–benefit analysis on animal welfare policies, we report the results of a novel experiment used to measure the public-good value of farm animal welfare, and show that although the average value in our sample is quite large, the result is due to the preferences of only a small subset of the subjects. , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2012. "Speciesism, altruism and the economics of animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 39(2), pages 189-212, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:39:y:2012:i:2:p:189-212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbr015
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Heise, Heinke & Gieseke, Daniel, 2018. "Gesagt, Getan? Zusammenhang Zwischen Einstellung Und Persönlichen Merkmalen Der Landwirte Und Dem Tierwohl-Niveau Auf Milchviehbetrieben," 58th Annual Conference, Kiel, Germany, September 12-14, 2018 275897, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Heise, Heinke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "What do consumers think about farm animal welfare in modern agriculture? Attitudes and shopping behaviour," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 20(3), November.
    3. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Moderate vs. Radical NGOs," TSE Working Papers 20-1159, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    4. Tozooneyi, Takesure & Pendell, Dustin L. & Rushton, Jonathan, 2023. "Potential economic welfare impacts of the African Swine Fever virus on the U.S. pork supply chain," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335872, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Enoch Owusu-Sekyere & Helena Hansson & Evgenij Telezhenko, 2022. "Use and non-use values to explain farmers’ motivation for the provision of animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(2), pages 499-525.
    6. Moisescu Ovidiu-Ioan, 2015. "Demographics-based differences in the relationship between perceived CSR and customer loyalty in the dairy products market," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 118-131, September.
    7. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Moderate Versus Radical NGOs†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1478-1501, August.

    More about this item

    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:oup:erevae:v:39:y:2012:i:2:p:189-212. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.