IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/anr/reseco/v9y2017p33-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Certification Mechanisms for Credence Attributes of Foods: Does It Matter Who Provides Diagnosis?

Author

Listed:
  • Ian M. Sheldon

    (Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210)

Abstract

Credence goods markets are subject to failure because consumers are unable to punish fraudulent experts who diagnose and supply treatment, and they lack the technical expertise with which to verify the quality of treatment actually offered. The focus of research in agricultural economics has been almost entirely on how labeling and certification of food products that contain credence attributes resolve the lemons problem. This ignores the crucial role that firms, nongovernmental organizations, or government regulatory agencies, acting either independently or jointly as experts, play in the process of diagnosis and treatment in credence goods markets. This is important if experts fail to act in good faith through their diagnosis and treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian M. Sheldon, 2017. "Certification Mechanisms for Credence Attributes of Foods: Does It Matter Who Provides Diagnosis?," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 33-51, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:anr:reseco:v:9:y:2017:p:33-51
    DOI: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053630
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053630
    Download Restriction: Full text downloads are only available to subscribers. Visit the abstract page for more information.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053630?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
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton, 2017. "Agri-food supply chain: evolution and performance with conflicting consumer and societal demands," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 634-657.
    2. Rustagi, Devesh & Kroell, Markus, 2022. "Measuring honesty and explaining adulteration in naturally occurring markets," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    3. Sheldon, Ian M., 2022. "“Enforcement of Private Food Standards: A Role for Self-Reporting of Non-Compliance?”," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322404, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Daniel Rehsmann & Béatrice Roussillon & Paul Schweinzer, 2023. "Contesting Fake News," CESifo Working Paper Series 10632, CESifo.
    5. Del Giudice, Teresa & Cavallo, Carla & Vecchio, Riccardo, 2018. "Credence Attributes, Consumers Trust and Sensory Expectations in Modern Food Market: Is there a Need to Redefine their Role?," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(4), August.
    6. repec:ags:aaea22:335587 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Kari E. R. Heerman & Ian M. Sheldon, 2022. "Sustainable agricultural production, income, and eco‐labeling: What can be learned from a modern Ricardian approach?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 1614-1636, December.
    8. Walid Mukahhal & Gumataw Kifle Abebe & Rachel A. Bahn, 2022. "Opportunities and Challenges for Lebanese Horticultural Producers Linked to Corporate Buyers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Zilberman, David & Kaplan, Scott & Gordon, Ben, 2018. "The political economy of labeling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 6-13.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    credence goods; diagnosis and treatment; labeling and certification;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • 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:anr:reseco:v:9:y:2017:p:33-51. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: http://www.annualreviews.org (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.annualreviews.org .

    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.