IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ohswps/28316.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Opportunity Cost Of Food Safety Regulation - An Output Directional Distance Function Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Cho, Bo-Hyun
  • Hooker, Neal H.

Abstract

This paper provides a novel methodology to measure the impact of food safety regulation. An output directional distance function approach is applied to estimate the opportunity cost of food safety regulation and the shadow price of food risk. Such measures should be included as part of the overall cost of compliance for a more precise comparison of the benefits and costs of food safety regulation. Further, comparing the implicit shadow price of food risk and willingness to pay for food safety can bridge the gap of understanding how valuable safer foods are from the perspective of two different market participants - consumers and firms respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Cho, Bo-Hyun & Hooker, Neal H., 2004. "The Opportunity Cost Of Food Safety Regulation - An Output Directional Distance Function Approach," Working Papers 28316, Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ohswps:28316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/28316
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leopold Simar & Paul Wilson, 2000. "A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(6), pages 779-802.
    2. Fare, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Nelson, Julianne, 1990. "On Price Efficiency," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 31(3), pages 709-720, August.
    3. Luenberger, David G., 1992. "Benefit functions and duality," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 461-481.
    4. Léopold Simar & Paul W. Wilson, 1998. "Sensitivity Analysis of Efficiency Scores: How to Bootstrap in Nonparametric Frontier Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 49-61, January.
    5. John M. Antle, 1996. "Efficient Food Safety Regulation in the Food Manufacturing Sector," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1242-1247.
    6. W. Cooper & Shanling Li & L. Seiford & Kaoru Tone & R. Thrall & J. Zhu, 2001. "Sensitivity and Stability Analysis in DEA: Some Recent Developments," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 217-246, May.
    7. Fare, Rolf, et al, 1989. "Multilateral Productivity Comparisons When Some Outputs Are Undesirable: A Nonparametric Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 90-98, February.
    8. Hanoch, Giora & Rothschild, Michael, 1972. "Testing the Assumptions of Production Theory: A Nonparametric Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(2), pages 256-275, March-Apr.
    9. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 2003. "Nonparametric Productivity Analysis with Undesirable Outputs: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 1070-1074.
    10. Coggins, Jay S. & Swinton, John R., 1996. "The Price of Pollution: A Dual Approach to Valuing SO2Allowances," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 58-72, January.
    11. Chambers, Robert G. & Chung, Yangho & Fare, Rolf, 1996. "Benefit and Distance Functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 407-419, August.
    12. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 1998. "Shadow Pricing of Good and Bad Commodities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 584-590.
    13. John M. Antle, 2000. "No Such Thing as a Free Safe Lunch: The Cost of Food Safety Regulation in the Meat Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(2), pages 310-322.
    14. Quiggin, John & Chambers, Robert G, 1998. "Risk Premiums and Benefit Measures for Generalized-Expected-Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 121-137, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ohswps:28316. 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: http://edirc.repec.org/data/daohsus.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.