IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/ajagec/v103y2021i4p1478-1501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moderate Versus Radical NGOs†

Author

Listed:
  • Romain Espinosa
  • Nicolas Treich

Abstract

NGOs often vary in terms of how radical they are. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of NGO discourses in bringing about social change. We focus on animal advocacy: welfarist NGOs primarily seek to improve the conditions in which animals are raised and reduce meat consumption, whereas abolitionist NGOs categorically reject animal use and call for a vegan society. We design an experiment to study the respective impact of welfarist and abolitionist discourses on participants' beliefs regarding pro‐meat justifications and their actions, namely their propensity to engage in the short run in animal welfare (charity donation, petition against intensive farming) and plant‐based diets (subscription to a newsletter promoting plant‐based diets, petition supporting vegetarian meals). We first show that both welfarist and abolitionist discourses significantly undermine participants' pro‐meat justifications. Second, the welfarist discourse does not significantly affect participants' actions, although we detect a potential backlash effect of the abolitionist discourse. We show that the NGOs' positive standard effect on actions through the change in beliefs is outweighed by a negative behavioral response to the discourses (reactance effect). Last, greater public‐good contributions are associated with greater engagement in animal welfare in the presence of an NGO discourse.

Suggested Citation

  • Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Moderate Versus Radical NGOs†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1478-1501, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:ajagec:v:103:y:2021:i:4:p:1478-1501
    DOI: 10.1111/ajae.12156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12156
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajae.12156?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. Hestermann, Nina & Le Yaouanq, Yves & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "An economic model of the meat paradox," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Emir Kamenica & Matthew Gentzkow, 2011. "Bayesian Persuasion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2590-2615, October.
    3. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    4. Marco Springmann & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Sherman Robinson & Keith Wiebe & H Charles J Godfray & Mike Rayner & Peter Scarborough, 2018. "Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: A modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Besley, Timothy & Ghatak, Maitreesh, 2007. "Retailing public goods: The economics of corporate social responsibility," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(9), pages 1645-1663, September.
    6. Cordts, Anette & Nitzko, Sina & Spiller, Achim, 2014. "Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(A), pages 1-24, March.
    7. Karl-Heinz Erb & Christian Lauk & Thomas Kastner & Andreas Mayer & Michaela C. Theurl & Helmut Haberl, 2016. "Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, September.
    8. David P. Baron, 2001. "Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Integrated Strategy," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 7-45, March.
    9. Peter Tschofen & Inês L. Azevedo & Nicholas Z. Muller, 2019. "Fine particulate matter damages and value added in the US economy," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(40), pages 19857-19862, October.
    10. Harald Grethe, 2017. "The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 75-94, October.
    11. David Tilman & Michael Clark, 2014. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 518-522, November.
    12. Anthony Heyes & Marcel Oestreich, 2017. "The Optimal NGO Chief: Strategic Delegation in Social Advocacy," Working Papers 1701, Brock University, Department of Economics.
    13. 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.
    14. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    15. David P. Baron & Margaret Neale & Hayagreeva Rao, 2016. "Extending Nonmarket Strategy: Political Economy and the Radical Flank Effect in Private Politics," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 105-126, June.
    16. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199551163.
    17. Romain Espinosa, 2019. "The Elephant in the room: For an economic analysis of plant-based diets and animal welfare [L'éléphant dans la pièce : Pour une approche économique de l'alimentation végétale et de la condition ani," Post-Print halshs-02065781, HAL.
    18. Nosek, Brian A. & Ebersole, Charles R. & DeHaven, Alexander Carl & Mellor, David Thomas, 2018. "The Preregistration Revolution," OSF Preprints 2dxu5, Center for Open Science.
    19. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    20. Harald Grethe, 2017. "The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 75-94, October.
    21. Baron, David P., 2012. "The Industrial Organization of Private Politics," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 7(2), pages 135-174, April.
    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. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2023. "Eliciting Non-hypothetical Willingness-to-pay for Novel Products: An Application to Cultured Meat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(3), pages 673-706, August.
    2. Niszczota, Paweł & Błaszczyński, Jakub, 2024. "Hard to digest investments: People oppose investment in both conventional and cultured meat producers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    3. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A practical guide to Registered Reports for economists," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 90-122, June.
    4. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A Practical Guide to Registered Reports for Economists," Post-Print halshs-03897719, HAL.

    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. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Moderate vs. Radical NGOs," TSE Working Papers 20-1159, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    2. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Réquillart, Vincent & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    4. Carlier, Alexis & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 14(1), pages 113-152, April.
    5. Funke, Franziska & Mattauch, Linus & van den Bijgaart, Inge & Godfray, Charles & Hepburn, Cameron & Klenert, David & Springmann, Marco & Treich, Nicholas, 2021. "Is Meat Too Cheap? Towards Optimal Meat Taxation," INET Oxford Working Papers 2021-08, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    6. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Martin C. Parlasca & Matin Qaim, 2022. "Meat Consumption and Sustainability," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 17-41, October.
    8. Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Inge van den Bijgaart & H. Charles J. Godfray & Cameron Hepburn & David Klenert & Marco Springmann & Nicolas Treich, 2022. "Toward Optimal Meat Pricing: Is It Time to Tax Meat Consumption?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(2), pages 219-240.
    9. Aseem Kaul & Jiao Luo, 2018. "An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for‐profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1650-1677, June.
    10. Bazoche, Pascale & Guinet, Nicolas & Poret, Sylvaine & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2023. "Does the provision of information increase the substitution of animal proteins with plant-based proteins? An experimental investigation into consumer choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Perino, Grischa & Schwirplies, Claudia, 2022. "Meaty arguments and fishy effects: Field experimental evidence on the impact of reasons to reduce meat consumption," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    12. Fernando Mata & Maria Dos-Santos & Jack Cocksedge, 2023. "Attitudinal and Behavioural Differences towards Farm Animal Welfare among Consumers in the BRIC Countries and the USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Romain Espinosa & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Do people really want to be informed? Ex-ante evaluations of information-campaign effectiveness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1131-1155, December.
    14. Krautheim, Sebastian & Verdier, Thierry, 2016. "Offshoring with endogenous NGO activism," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 22-41.
    15. Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(1), pages 33-61, May.
    16. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2024. "Animal welfare as a public good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    17. Feicht, Robert & Grimm, Veronika & Seebauer, Michael, 2016. "An experimental study of corporate social responsibility through charitable giving in Bertrand markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 88-101.
    18. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    19. Treich, Nicolas & Espinosa, Romain, 2024. "The Animal-Welfare Levy," TSE Working Papers 24-1503, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    20. Luciano Fanti & Domenico Buccella, 2017. "Corporate social responsibility in a game-theoretic context," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 44(3), pages 371-390, September.

    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:wly:ajagec:v:103:y:2021:i:4:p:1478-1501. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-8276 .

    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.