IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Moderate vs. Radical NGOs


  • Treich, Nicolas
  • Espinosa, Romain


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, while 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, while 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

  • Treich, Nicolas & Espinosa, Romain, 2020. "Moderate vs. Radical NGOs," IAST Working Papers 20-115, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
  • Handle: RePEc:tse:iastwp:124912

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hestermann, Nina & Le Yaouanq, Yves & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "An economic model of the meat paradox," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Benjamin A. Olken, 2015. "Promises and Perils of Pre-analysis Plans," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 61-80, Summer.
    6. 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.
    7. Harald Grethe, 2017. "The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 75-94, October.
    8. Anthony Heyes & Marcel Oestreich, 2017. "The Optimal NGO Chief: Strategic Delegation in Social Advocacy," Working Papers 1701, Brock University, Department of Economics.
    9. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2002. "Self-Confidence and Personal Motivation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 871-915.
    10. Julien Daubanes & Jean-Charles Rochet, 2019. "The Rise of NGO Activism," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 183-212, November.
    11. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2012. "Speciesism, altruism and the economics of animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 39(2), pages 189-212, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2016. "Mindful Economics: The Production, Consumption, and Value of Beliefs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 141-164, Summer.
    14. 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.
    15. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199551163.
    16. David P. Baron, 2010. "Morally Motivated Self-Regulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1299-1329, September.
    17. Nosek, Brian A. & Ebersole, Charles R. & DeHaven, Alexander Carl & Mellor, David Thomas, 2018. "The Preregistration Revolution," OSF Preprints 2dxu5, Center for Open Science.
    18. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    19. Baron, David P., 2012. "The Industrial Organization of Private Politics," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 7(2), pages 135-174, April.
    20. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    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. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Moderate Versus Radical NGOs†," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(4), pages 1478-1501, August.
    2. Nicolas Treich, 2018. "Veganomics : vers une approche économique du véganisme ?," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(4), pages 3-48.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Hestermann, Nina & Le Yaouanq, Yves & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "An economic model of the meat paradox," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    6. Gneezy, Uri & Saccardo, Silvia & Serra-Garcia, Marta & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2020. "Bribing the Self," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 311-324.
    7. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    8. Krautheim, Sebastian & Verdier, Thierry, 2016. "Offshoring with endogenous NGO activism," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 22-41.
    9. Sylvaine Poret, 2014. "Corporate-NGO partnerships in CSR activities: why and how?," Working Papers hal-01070474, HAL.
    10. Lily Hsueh, 2020. "Expanding the multiple streams framework to explain the formation of diverse voluntary programs: evidence from US toxic chemical use policy," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(2), pages 111-123, June.
    11. Hagenbach, Jeanne & Koessler, Frédéric, 2021. "Selective memory of a psychological agent," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2021-201, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    12. 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.
    13. Barron, Kai & Gravert, Christina, 2018. "Confidence and Career Choices: An Experiment," Working Papers in Economics 715, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    14. Silvia Saccardo & Marta Serra-Garcia, 2020. "Cognitive Flexibility or Moral Commitment? Evidence of Anticipated Belief Distortion," CESifo Working Paper Series 8529, CESifo.
    15. Patricia Crifo & Vanina Forget, 2013. "La responsabilité sociale et environnementale des entreprises : mirage ou virage ?," Working Papers hal-00830642, HAL.
    16. Patricia Crifo & Vanina D. Forget, 2015. "The Economics Of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Firm-Level Perspective Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 112-130, February.
    17. 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).
    18. Florence TOUYA, 2019. "The Assignment of a CSR Level of Action: Rule vs Discretion," Working Papers 2018-2019_3, CATT - UPPA - Université de Pau et des Pays de l'Adour, revised Jun 2019.
    19. Patricia Crifo & Vanina Forget, 2012. "The Economics of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Survey," Working Papers hal-00720640, HAL.
    20. Florence Lachet-Touya, 2019. "The Assignment of a CSR Level of Action: Rule vs Discretion," Working Papers hal-02141052, HAL.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:tse:iastwp:124912. 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: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.