IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midasp/11758.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Welfare Consequences Of Certified Labeling For Credence Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Hoehn, John P.
  • Deaton, Brady J., Jr.

Abstract

Certified labeling for credence attributes is examined using the concepts of pooled and separating equilibria. The analysis addresses a latent credence good demand that differs from a conventional good demand by willingness to pay for the credence characteristic. Third-party certified labeling vertically differentiates the two products and a two separate markets replace a single pooled market. Market outcomes are examined theoretically and with empirical simulations. Costless labeling is net welfare improving, but impacts are highly asymmetric. Credence producers gain largely at the expense of conventional producers. Costly labeling may reduce welfare even with rather modest labeling costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoehn, John P. & Deaton, Brady J., Jr., 2004. "The Welfare Consequences Of Certified Labeling For Credence Attributes," Staff Paper Series 11758, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:11758
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.11758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/11758/files/sp04-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teisl, Mario F. & Roe, Brian & Hicks, Robert L., 2002. "Can Eco-Labels Tune a Market? Evidence from Dolphin-Safe Labeling," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 339-359, May.
    2. Giannakas, Konstantinos & Fulton, Murray, 2002. "Consumption effects of genetic modification: what if consumers are right?," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 97-109, August.
    3. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    4. Caswell, Julie A., 1998. "How Labeling of Safety and Process Attributes Affects Markets for Food," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 151-158, October.
    5. Buzby, Jean C. & Ready, Richard C. & Skees, Jerry R., 1995. "Contingent Valuation In Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study Of A Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Konstantinos Giannakas, 2002. "Information Asymmetries and Consumption Decisions in Organic Food Product Markets," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(1), pages 35-50, March.
    7. Brown, Mark G. & Lee, Jonq-Ying, 2002. "Restrictions on the Effects of Preference Variables in the Rotterdam Model," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 17-26, April.
    8. McCluskey, Jill J., 2000. "A Game Theoretic Approach to Organic Foods: An Analysis of Asymmetric Information and Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 1-9, April.
    9. Calvin, Linda & Cook, Roberta L. & Denbaly, Mark & Dimitri, Carolyn & Glaser, Lewrene K. & Handy, Charles R. & Jekanowski, Mark D. & Kaufman, Phillip R. & Krissoff, Barry & Thompson, Gary D. & Thornsb, 2001. "U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing: Emerging Trade Practices, Trends, and Issues," Agricultural Economic Reports 33915, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Jeffrey R. Blend & Eileen O. van Ravenswaay, 1999. "Measuring Consumer Demand for Ecolabeled Apples," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1072-1077.
    11. Brown, Mark G. & Lee, Jonq-Ying, 2002. "Restrictions On The Effects Of Preference Variables In The Rotterdam Model," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-10, April.
    12. Huang, Kuo S. & Lin, Biing-Hwan, 2000. "Estimation of Food Demand Nutrient Elasticities from household Survey Data," Technical Bulletins 184370, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Huang, Kuo S. & Lin, Biing-Hwan, 2000. "Estimation Of Food Demand And Nutrient Elasticities From Household Survey Data," Technical Bulletins 33579, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    14. John M. Crespi & St)phan Marette, 2001. "How Should Food Safety Certification be Financed?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 852-861.
    15. Greene, Catherine R., 2001. "U.S. Organic Farming Emerges in the 1990s: Adoption of Certified Systems," Agricultural Information Bulletins 33777, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Hoehn, John P. & Deaton, Brady J., Jr., 2003. "Information As A Double-Edged Sword: The Economic And Welfare Consequences Of Certified Labeling For Credence Attributes," Staff Paper Series 11762, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Giovanni Anania & Rosanna Nisticò, 2004. "Public Regulation as a Substitute for Trust in Quality Food Markets: What if the Trust Substitute cannot be Fully Trusted?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 681-701, December.
    3. Crespi, John M. & Marette, Stephan, 2003. "Some Economic Implications Of Public Labeling," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Olivier Bonroy & Christos Constantatos, 2015. "On the Economics of Labels: How Their Introduction Affects the Functioning of Markets and the Welfare of All Participants," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 239-259.
    5. Douadia Bougherara & Virginie Piguet, 2008. "Marchés avec coûts d'information sur la qualité des biens : une application aux produits écolabellisés," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(1), pages 77-96.
    6. Athearn, Kevin R., 2003. "Can Eco-Labeling Do More Harm Than Good? A Comparative Statics Analysis," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35105, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Maïmouna Yokessa & Stephan Marette, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact [Une revue sur les écolabels et leur impact économique]," Post-Print hal-02628579, HAL.
    8. Hoi Quoc Le & Thi Minh Nguyen, 2018. "Behaviors in the market for safe vegetables under information asymmetry: modeling approach," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 8(3), pages 381-392, December.
    9. Steve Holland, 2016. "Lending credence: motivation, trust, and organic certification," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Etilé, Fabrice & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2013. "Corporate social responsibility and the economics of consumer social responsibility," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 94(2).
    11. Maria Luz Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey, 2000. "Assessing consumer response to protected geographical identification labeling," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 309-320.
    12. Venus, Thomas J. & Drabik, Dusan & Wesseler, Justus, 2018. "The role of a German multi-stakeholder standard for livestock products derived from non-GMO feed," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 58-67.
    13. McCluskey, Jill J., 2000. "A Game Theoretic Approach to Organic Foods: An Analysis of Asymmetric Information and Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 1-9, April.
    14. Baker, Andrew & Smyth, Stuart, 2010. "Managing Opportunism in Value-Added Supply Chains:," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 187979, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    15. Giannakas, Konstantinos & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2003. "Agricultural Biotechnology And Organic Agriculture: National Organic Standards, Labeling And Second-Generation Of Gm Products," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22063, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. John Crespi & Stéphan Marette, 2003. "“Does Contain” vs. “Does Not Contain”: Does it Matter which GMO Label is Used?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 327-344, November.
    17. Zago, Angelo M. & Pick, Daniel H., 2004. "Labeling Policies in Food Markets: Private Incentives, Public Intervention, and Welfare Effects," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16, April.
    18. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2010. "Ecolabeling, consumers' preferences and taxation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2202-2212, September.
    19. Holland, Steven, 2015. "Lending Credence: Motivation, Trust and Organic Certification," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205192, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. repec:gbl:wpaper:2013-01 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Douadia Bougherara & Gilles Grolleau, 2005. "Designing ecolabels in order to mitigate market failures: an application to agrofood products," Post-Print hal-01939943, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing;

    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:midasp:11758. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damsuus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.