首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure
Institution:1. Department of Food and Resource Economics, Section for Consumption, Bioethics and Governance at the University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25C, 1958, Frederiksberg, Denmark;2. Danish Meat Research Institute, Technological Institute, Gregersensvej 9, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark;3. Department of Food and Resource Economics, Section for Consumption, Bioethics and Governance at the University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25C, 1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark;1. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 25, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark;2. Department of Large Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 8, 1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark;1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, POB 7054, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden;2. Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, POB 7013, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden;3. Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, POB 234, SE-532 23, Skara, Sweden;4. Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, POB 7068, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden;5. Department of Economics, Information Technology University, Arfa Karim Technology Park, Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract:Animal welfare is often cited as a classic public good, which implies market failure and, thus, that government intervention is required. However, the current literature does not provide an accessible account of how governed markets are supposed to cope with the issues of animal welfare. This paper seeks to fill this gap by re-considering the political economy of animal welfare. Conceptual analysis shows that the major cause of market failure in the case of farm animal welfare is a problem of consumption externalities. It is the specific regulation of animal welfare conditions which is a public good (or bad). Two important conclusions follow from this analysis, which are largely unexplored in the literature on animal welfare. First, measurement of potential market failure, through identifying actual willingness to pay (WTP) for animal welfare friendly products, is potentially misleading. The difference between citizen votes and consumer WTP for animal welfare is not prima facie evidence for either market failure or a gap in the market. Second, conventional arguments in favour of subsidies and assistance to producers for better animal welfare are misconceived and potentially counterproductive. A more rational policy is to subsidise the consumption of animal welfare friendly products.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号