IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v38y2016i4p673-711..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Meat Demand Elasticities Vary with Price, Income, and Product Category

Author

Listed:
  • Jayson L. Lusk
  • Glynn T. Tonsor

Abstract

As US beef and pork prices approached record high levels in 2014, industry analysts expressed surprised at consumer response. Because the relative price swings have occurred only recently, traditional approaches to demand analysis that rely on historical data series may be less useful than is typically the case. Employing one of the largest and longest-running choice experiments, we analyze data on 110,295 choices made by 12,255 consumers observed over a year-long time period coinciding with historically high meat prices. Our findings reveal nonlinear demands for meat products, with demand being more inelastic at higher prices. Ground beef, steak, and pork chop demands are more sensitive to changes in chicken breast price than the reverse. Moreover, cross-price elasticities between disaggregate meat products shrink as prices rise. Consumers' incomes significantly affect demand inter-relationships. Higher income consumers are more likely to choose steak and chicken breasts and are less likely to choose ground beef, chicken wings, and deli ham than are lower income consumers. High-income consumers tend to be less responsive to own-price changes and more responsive to cross-price changes than lower income consumers. This analysis provides estimates of structural demand parameters that help explain current meat expenditure patterns, and the results have implications for the assumption of linearity often invoked in policy analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Jayson L. Lusk & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2016. "How Meat Demand Elasticities Vary with Price, Income, and Product Category," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 673-711.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:38:y:2016:i:4:p:673-711.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppv050
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    2. Taylor, Mykel R. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2013. "Revealed Demand for Country-of-Origin Labeling of Meat in the United States," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Timmermans, Harry & Borgers, Aloys & van der Waerden, Peter, 1991. "Mother logit analysis of substitution effects in consumer shopping destination choice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 311-323, December.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    5. Nicholas E. Piggott & James A. Chalfant & Julian M. Alston & Garry R. Griffith, 1996. "Demand Response to Advertising in the Australian Meat Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(2), pages 268-279.
    6. Lusk, Jayson L. & Roosen, Jutta & Shogren, Jason (ed.), 2011. "The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199569441.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Trey Malone & K. Aleks Schaefer & Felicia Wu, 2021. "The Razor's Edge of “Essential” Labor in Food and Agriculture," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 368-381, March.
    2. Dong, Diansheng & Stewart, Hayden & Dong, Xiao & Hahn, William, 2022. "Quantifying Consumer Welfare Impacts of Higher Meat Prices During the COVID-19 Pandemic," Amber Waves:The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 2022(Economic ), April.
    3. Benjamin DeMuth & Trey Malone & Brandon R. McFadden & Christopher A. Wolf, 2023. "Choice effects associated with banning the word “meat” on alternative protein labels," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 128-144, March.
    4. Lusk, Jayson L. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Schroeder, Ted C. & Hayes, Dermot J., 2018. "Effect of government quality grade labels on consumer demand for pork chops in the short and long run," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 91-102.
    5. Short, Gianna & Peterson, Hikaru, . "Does time spent preparing food affect consumers’ food choices?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, 2016, Boston, Massachusetts 236153, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Peter Slade, 2018. "The Effects of Pricing Canadian Livestock Emissions," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(2), pages 305-329, June.
    7. Lusk, Jayson L., 2019. "Income and (Ir) rational food choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 630-645.
    8. Yuan, Rao & Asioli, Daniele & Jin, Shaosheng & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2021. "Consumers’ Valuation for Cultured Chicken Meat: A Multi-city Choice Experiment in China," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Christopher Swann & Mary Kelly, 2023. "Disruption in the meat industry: new technologies in nonmeat substitutes," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 58(1), pages 42-60, January.
    10. Ortega, David L. & Sun, Jiayu & Lin, Wen, 2022. "Identity labels as an instrument to reduce meat demand and encourage consumption of plant based and cultured meat alternatives in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    11. Vincenzina Caputo & Giovanni Sogari & Ellen J. Van Loo, 2023. "Do plant‐based and blend meat alternatives taste like meat? A combined sensory and choice experiment study," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 86-105, March.
    12. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Bhagyashree Katare & H. Holly Wang & Jonathan Lawing & Na Hao & Timothy Park & Michael Wetzstein, 2020. "Toward Optimal Meat Consumption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 662-680, March.
    14. Short, Gianna & Peterson, Hikaru, 2016. "Does time spent preparing food affect consumers’ food choices?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 244990, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2023. "Market potential of new plant‐based protein alternatives: Insights from four US consumer experiments," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 164-181, March.
    16. Ogoudélé S. Codjo & Alvaro Durand‐Morat & Grant H. West & Lawton Lanier Nalley & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Eric J. Wailes, 2021. "Estimating demand elasticities for rice in Benin," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(2), pages 343-361, March.
    17. Perry, Agnieszka Dobrowolska & Brown, Scott, 2021. "Does Dairy and Meat Demand Change over Time? Comparison of Aids Demand System from Two Time Periods," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315921, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2017. "Cow Welfare in the U.S. Dairy Industry: Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Supply," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.
    19. Rokicki, Tomasz & Ringdorfer, Ferdinand & Perkowska, Aleksandra, 2020. "Variability In Prices Of Lamb Meat In Austria And Poland," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2020(4).
    20. Joseph V. Balagtas & Joseph Cooper & Patrick McLaughlin & Fei Qin, 2023. "Consumer demand for food at home and food away from home: Understanding economic linkages during the pandemic," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1604-1617, September.
    21. Elliott J. Dennis & Glynn T. Tonsor & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Choosing quantities impacts individuals choice, rationality, and willingness to pay estimates," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 945-962, November.
    22. Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2022. "The Basket-Based Choice Experiment: A Method for Food Demand Policy Analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    23. Peter Slade & Mila Markevych, 2024. "Killing the sacred dairy cow? Consumer preferences for plant‐based milk alternatives," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 70-92, January.

    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. Grebitus, Carola & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 11-26.
    2. Ulf Liebe & Veronika A. Andorfer & Patricia A. Gwartney & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2014. "Ethical Consumption and Social Context: Experimental Evidence from Germany and the United States," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 7, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences.
    3. Carson, Richard T. & Eagle, Thomas C. & Islam, Towhidul & Louviere, Jordan J., 2022. "Volumetric choice experiments (VCEs)," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    4. Lipovetsky, Stan & Conklin, Michael, 2014. "Finding items cannibalization and synergy by BWS data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    7. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    9. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    10. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    12. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    13. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    14. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    15. Deenihan, Gerard & Caulfield, Brian, 2015. "Do tourists value different levels of cycling infrastructure?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 92-101.
    16. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    17. Ateesha Mohamed & A. Hauber & Maureen Neary, 2011. "Patient Benefit-Risk Preferences for Targeted Agents in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 977-988, November.
    18. Lipovetsky, Stan, 2018. "Quantum paradigm of probability amplitude and complex utility in entangled discrete choice modeling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 62-73.
    19. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    20. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    beef; chicken; choice experiment; heterogeneous consumers; meat demand; mixed logit; nonlinear elasticities; pork;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q11 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis; Prices
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:oup:apecpp:v:38:y:2016:i:4:p:673-711.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.