IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277559.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New goods with new attributes: combining revealed and stated preferences to assess the effect of a novel quality label in the food industry

Author

Listed:
  • Gonzalez, J.
  • Lacaze, V.

Abstract

This paper evaluates the effect on market shares and consumer surplus of the introduction of a Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)-labeled product in the frozen fried potatoes (FFP) industry. We first estimate a model of household demand in Mar del Plata, Argentina, using scanner data and demographic information. We find that higher income individuals are more concerned about health and nutrition, and that younger and lower-income consumers are more price-sensitive. Then we postulate that a properly GAP-labeled FFP is available in the market, and we assess its effect by using the estimated utility function and prior information about consumers declared willingness to pay (WTP) for sustainably produced potatoes. We find that the older the individual, the greater the influence of the hypothetical introduction of the GAP-labeled product; the relationship is less conclusive in the case of income. Finally, we predict the results of a greater consumer surplus extraction by fixing a higher price for the new product, and we calculate the maximum increase in the marginal cost that the firm would be able to afford if farmers charge higher prices for GAP fresh potatoes Acknowledgement :

Suggested Citation

  • Gonzalez, J. & Lacaze, V., 2018. "New goods with new attributes: combining revealed and stated preferences to assess the effect of a novel quality label in the food industry," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277559, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277559
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277559/files/2375.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277559?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Yucai Wang, 2015. "The impact of soda taxes on consumer welfare: implications of storability and taste heterogeneity," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 409-441, June.
    2. repec:zwi:journl:v:26:y:2011:i:3 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:zwi:journl:v:44:y:2012:i:22:p:2859-2865 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Berning, Joshua P., 2011. "Evaluating Excise Taxes: The Need to Consider Brand Advertising," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1-5, October.
    5. Rigoberto A. Lopez & Kristen L. Fantuzzi, 2012. "Demand for carbonated soft drinks: implications for obesity policy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(22), pages 2859-2865, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gonzalez, Julia, 2018. "Soda consumption and brand loyalty," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273980, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Samane Zare & Mahdi Asgari & Timothy Woods & Yuqing Zheng, 2020. "Consumer proximity and brand loyalty in craft soda marketing: A case study of Ale‐8‐One," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 522-541, October.
    3. Xun Li & Rigoberto A. Lopez, 2015. "Do Brand Advertising Spillovers Matter?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 229-242, April.
    4. Pierre Dubois & Rachel Griffith & Martin O'Connell, 2020. "How Well Targeted Are Soda Taxes?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3661-3704, November.
    5. Bimbo, Francesco & Bonanno, Alessandro & Viscecchia, Rosaria, 2019. "An empirical framework to study food labelling fraud: an application to the Italian extra-virgin olive oil market," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    6. O'Connell, Martin & Smith, Kate, 2020. "Corrective Tax Design and Market Power," CEPR Discussion Papers 14582, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. John Gibson & Steven Tucker & Geua Boe-Gibson, 2019. "Testing an Information Intervention: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Jamie Oliver on Fizzy Drinks Demand," Working Papers in Economics 19/08, University of Waikato.
    8. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(3), pages 1557-1626.
    9. Rachel Griffith & Martin O’Connell & Kate Smith, 2018. "Corrective Taxation and Internalities from Food Consumption," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 64(1), pages 1-14.
    10. Kazuko Kano, 2018. "Consumer Inventory and Demand for Storable Goods: New Evidence from a Consumer Survey," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 284-305, September.
    11. Alyssa J. Moran & Yuxuan Gu & Sasha Clynes & Attia Goheer & Christina A. Roberto & Anne Palmer, 2020. "Associations between Governmental Policies to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Supermarket Purchases and Individual, Retailer, and Community Health Outcomes: An Integrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-23, October.
    12. Abi-Rafeh, Rossi & Dubois, Pierre & Griffith, Rachel & O'Connell, Martin, 2023. "The Effects of Sin Taxes and Advertising Restrictions in a Dynamic Equilibrium," CEPR Discussion Papers 18527, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Yizao Liu & Rigoberto A. Lopez & Chen Zhu, 2013. "How Effective is Public Policy in Decreasing Soda Consumption? An Assessment of Four Policy Options," Working Papers 19, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    14. Liu, Yizao & Lopez, Rigoberto A., 2013. "The Impact of Social Media on Consumer Demand: The Case of Carbonated Soft Drink Market," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 148913, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Andalón, Mabel & Gibson, John, 2018. "The ‘soda tax’ is unlikely to make Mexicans lighter or healthier: New evidence on biases in elasticities of demand for soda," MPRA Paper 86370, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Mabel Andalon & John Gibson, 2017. "The 'Soda Tax' is Unlikely to Make Mexicans Lighter: New Evidence on Biases in Elasticities of Demand for Soda," Working Papers in Economics 17/07, University of Waikato.
    17. Pei Zhou & Yizao Liu, 2024. "Promoting healthy diets through food reformulation: The demand for “better‐for‐you” beverage," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 641-660, July.
    18. Yichen Zhong & Amy H. Auchincloss & Brian K. Lee & Ryan M. McKenna & Brent A. Langellier, 2020. "Sugar-Sweetened and Diet Beverage Consumption in Philadelphia One Year after the Beverage Tax," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    19. Fabrice Etilé & Sébastien Lecocq & Christine Boizot-Szantai, 2021. "Market heterogeneity and the distributional incidence of soft-drink taxes: evidence from France [Regressive sin taxes, with an application to the optimal soda tax]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 915-939.
    20. Martin O'Connell & Kate Smith, 2024. "Optimal Sin Taxation and Market Power," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 34-70, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iaae18:277559. 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/iaaeeea.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.