IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/169051.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting State-Wide Votes on Ballot Initiatives to Ban Battery Cages and Gestation Crates

Author

Listed:
  • Smithson, Katie
  • Corbin, Max
  • Lusk, Jayson L.
  • Norwood, F. Bailey

Abstract

After California voters decided in a state initiative to ban gestation crates and battery cages, some are asking whether other states will host similar initiatives and if they will pass. This study addresses this question by using voting data in California to predict how voters in other states would respond to a similar initiative. Results suggest that a number of states allow such initiatives and possess a demographic profile favorable to the initiative’s passage. However, because these states host only a small portion of the livestock population, the impact of such initiatives on the well-being of farm animals is questionable.

Suggested Citation

  • Smithson, Katie & Corbin, Max & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2014. "Predicting State-Wide Votes on Ballot Initiatives to Ban Battery Cages and Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(1), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:169051
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.169051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/169051/files/jaae592-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.169051?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    2. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199551163.
    3. Videras, Julio, 2006. "Religion and animal welfare: Evidence from voting data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 652-659, August.
    4. Timothy Richards & William Allender & Di Fang, 2013. "Media Advertising And Ballot Initiatives: The Case Of Animal Welfare Regulation," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(1), pages 145-162, January.
    5. Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753, November.
    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. Ufer, Danielle, 2022. "State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries: An Overview," USDA Miscellaneous 333544, United States Department of Agriculture.
    2. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Schaefer, K. Aleks, 2022. "Resolving the reality gap in farm regulation voting models," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    3. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    4. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Rice, Emma D., 2020. "Understanding the U.S. Publics’ Voting on Animal Welfare and Genetically Modified Organism Labeling Ballot Initiatives," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    6. 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.

    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. Tomislav Vukina & Danijel Nestic, 2020. "Paying for animal welfare? A hedonic analysis of egg prices," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 613-630, October.
    2. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    3. repec:ags:joaaec:163100 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Rice, Emma D., 2020. "Understanding the U.S. Publics’ Voting on Animal Welfare and Genetically Modified Organism Labeling Ballot Initiatives," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Klepper, Gernot & Dovern, Jonas & Rickels, Wilfried & Barben, Daniel & Goeschl, Timo & Harnisch, Sebastian & Heyen, Daniel & Janich, Nina & Maas, Achim & Matzner, Nils & Scheffran, Jürgen & Uther, Ste, 2016. "Herausforderung Climate Engineering: Bewertung neuer Optionen für den Klimaschutz," Kieler Beiträge zur Wirtschaftspolitik 8, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    6. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "New roads to international environmental agreements: the case of global warming," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 7(4), pages 391-414, December.
    7. Petrolia, Daniel & Interis, Matthew & Hwang, Joonghyun, 2015. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Working Papers 212479, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    8. Mooney, Daniel F. & Barham, Bradford L. & Lian, Chang, 2013. "Sustainable Biofuels, Marginal Agricultural Lands, and Farm Supply Response: Micro-Evidence for Southwest Wisconsin," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150510, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Radosław Piwowarski, 2015. "Swing voters distribution into the income groups in Poland in the years 2001-2011: Probabilistic voting model perspective," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 40.
    10. Peter J. Coughlin, 2015. "Probabilistic voting in models of electoral competition," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 13, pages 218-234, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    12. Eyal Baharad & Shmuel Nitzan, 2011. "Condorcet vs. Borda in light of a dual majoritarian approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 151-162, August.
    13. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    14. Sung-Min Kim & Ju-Hee Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Substituting Natural Gas with Renewable Methane: A Contingent Valuation Experiment in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    15. Fancello, Giovanna & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2021. "Learning urban capabilities from behaviours. A focus on visitors values for urban planning," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    16. Silvia Dominguez-Martinez & Otto Swank, 2006. "Polarization, Information Collection and Electoral Control," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 527-545, June.
    17. Erwin Ooghe & Andreas Peichl, 2015. "Fair and Efficient Taxation under Partial Control," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(589), pages 2024-2051, December.
    18. John C. Whitehead, 2006. "Willingness to Pay for Low Probability, Low Loss Hazard Insurance," Working Papers 06-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    19. John C. Whitehead & Christopher F. Dumas & Jim Herstine & Jeffery Hill & Bob Buerger, 2006. "Valuing Beach Access and Width with Revealed and Stated Preference Data," Working Papers 06-15, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    20. Marselli, Riccardo & McCannon, Bryan C. & Vannini, Marco, 2015. "Bargaining in the shadow of arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 356-368.
    21. Russell Pittman, 2007. "Consumer Surplus as the Appropriate Standard for Antitrust Enforcement," EAG Discussions Papers 200709, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy; International Relations/Trade;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H7 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture

    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:ags:joaaec:169051. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.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.