IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Zur Integration von Tieren in wohlfahrtsökonomische Analysen


  • Marggraf, Rainer
  • Masius, Patrick
  • Rumpf, Christine


Insbesondere die zunehmende Diskussion um die Probleme und Regulierung landwirtschaftlicher Nutztierhaltung hat dazu geführt, dass in den letzten Jahren zahlreiche ökonomische Analysen veröffentlicht wurden, die das Wohlbefinden von Tieren zum Thema haben (z. B. Köhler 2005; Makdisi 2011; Schrader 2009; Wille 2011). Allen diesen Arbeiten ist gemein, dass das Wohlbefinden der Tiere indirekt berücksichtigt wird. Das Wohlbefinden der Tiere beeinflusst die wohlfahrtsökonomische Beurteilung eines Sachverhalts dann, und nur dann, wenn es Menschen gibt, denen das tierische Wohl 'etwas wert' ist. Die Motive dafür können durchaus über ein enges Nutzenkalkül hinausgehen und moralisch oder altruistisch begründet sein. Dieser Ansatz ist sicherlich zufriedenstellender als wenn man Tiere nur unter dem Aspekt ihrer kommerziellen Nützlichkeit (im weitesten Sinn) berücksichtigen würde, gleichwohl trägt er nicht der Forderung Rechnung, Tiere und Menschen moralisch analog zu berücksichtigen. Diese Forderung ist in Bezug auf empfindungsfähige Tiere nicht nur von den utilitaristischen Vorvätern der Wohlfahrtsökonomie erhoben worden, sie wird auch von den meisten Tierethikern vertreten. Es überwiegt die Meinung, dass man innerhalb ökonomischer Analysen dieser Forderung nicht Rechnung tragen kann. Aus ökonomischer Sicht gelte '(farm animals’) value and importance is derived explicitly from what the contribute to economic output' (McInerney 2004) und '(animals’) preferences and wellbeing have relevance only to the extent that they are important to (humans)' (ebd.), weshalb Ökonomen '(have to) assign zero value to the welfare of any sentinent life with no spending power' (Frank 2002). Wir schließen uns dieser Meinung nicht an, sondern wollen mit unserem Beitrag den Kreis der wenigen ökonomischen Arbeiten erweitern, die über den anthropozentrischen Rahmen hinausgehen. Unser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, wie man innerhalb der Wohlfahrtsökonomie einen Eigenwert der Tiere berücksichtigen kann.

Suggested Citation

  • Marggraf, Rainer & Masius, Patrick & Rumpf, Christine, 2012. "Zur Integration von Tieren in wohlfahrtsökonomische Analysen," DARE Discussion Papers 1207, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1207

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Flores, Nicholas E., 2002. "Non-paternalistic altruism and welfare economics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 293-305, February.
    2. Bhattacharyya, Aditi & Pattanaik, Prasanta K. & Xu, Yongsheng, 2011. "Choice, Internal Consistency And Rationality," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 123-149, July.
    3. Richard O. Zerbe, 2001. "Economic Efficiency in Law and Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1992, December.
    4. Robert W. Hahn & Patrick M. Dudley, 2007. "How Well Does the U.S. Government Do Benefit-Cost Analysis?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 1(2), pages 192-211, Summer.
    5. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1992. "Pigs and Guinea Pigs: A Note on the Ethics of Animal Exploitation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(415), pages 1345-1369, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Sechs Lesetipps für’s Pfingstwochenende
      by Johannes Eber in Pixelökonom on 2012-05-25 16:54:35

    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. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19118 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. David A. Keiser & Catherine L. Kling & Joseph S. Shapiro, 2019. "The low but uncertain measured benefits of US water quality policy," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(12), pages 5262-5269, March.
    3. Charles Blackorby & Walter Bossert & David Donaldson, 2003. "The Axiomatic Approach to Population Ethics," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 2(3), pages 342-381, October.
    4. Boyle, Glenn, 2008. "The Dog That Doesn't Bark: Animal Interests in Economics," Working Paper Series 4017, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    5. Blackorby, Charles & Bossert, Walter, 2004. "Interpersonal comparisons of well-being," Economic Research Papers 269605, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    7. Irena Antošová & Jana Stávková, 2019. "Application of the Institute of Income Redistribution in the Form of Social Transfers in EU Countries," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 2, pages 161-172, June.
    8. 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).
    9. McGartland, Al, 2013. "Thirty Years of Economics at the Environmental Protection Agency," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(3), pages 1-17, December.
    10. Bishop, Richard C., 2018. "Warm Glow, Good Feelings, and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    11. Lombardini, Chiara & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kulmala, Soile & Lindroos, Marko, 2011. "Is there a Finnish Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114379, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Jack L. Knetsch, 2005. "The Appropriate Choice Of Valuation Measure In Usual Cases Of Losses Valued More Than Gains," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 50(spec0), pages 393-406.
    13. Clay, Karen & Wright, Gavin, 2005. "Order without law? Property rights during the California gold rush," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 155-183, April.
    14. Alauddin, Mohammad, 2004. "Environmentalizing economic development: a South Asian perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3-4), pages 251-270, December.
    15. Blackorby, Charles & Bossert, Walter & Donaldson, David, 1999. "Foreign aid and population policy: some ethical considerations," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 203-232, August.
    16. Atkinson, Giles & Groom, Ben & Hanley, Nicholas & Mourato, Susana, 2018. "Environmental Valuation and Benefit-Cost Analysis in U.K. Policy," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 97-119, April.
    17. Cyril Hédoin, 2017. "Normative economics and paternalism: the problem with the preference-satisfaction account of welfare," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 286-310, September.
    18. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'Dubious to Hopeless' Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    19. Scott Farrow, 2008. "Improving the Regulatory Analysis of the Cooling Water Intake Structure Rule: What Does an Economist Want?," UMBC Economics Department Working Papers 09-102, UMBC Department of Economics.
    20. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2016. "Mentalism Versus Behaviourism In Economics: A Philosophy-Of-Science Perspective," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 249-281, July.
    21. Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2003. "Option Wealth and Bequest Values: The Value of Protecting Future Generations from the Health Risks of Nuclear Waste Storage," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 537-548.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:daredp:1207. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (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. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.