IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uersrr/118020.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Infant Formula Market: Consequences of a Change in the WIC Contract Brand

Author

Listed:
  • Oliveira, Victor
  • Frazao, Elizabeth
  • Smallwood, David M.

Abstract

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is the major purchaser of infant formula in the United States. To reduce cost to the WIC program, each State awards a sole-source contract to a formula manufacturer to provide its product to WIC participants in the State. As part of the contract, the WIC State agency receives rebates from the manufacturers. In this study, we use 2004-09 Nielsen scanner-based retail sales data from over 7,000 stores in 30 States to examine the effect of winning a WIC sole-source contract on infant formula manufacturers’ market share in supermarkets. We find that the manufacturer holding the WIC contract brand accounted for the vast majority—84 percent—of all formula sold by the top three manufacturers. The impact of a switch in the manufacturer that holds the WIC contract was considerable. The market share of the manufacturer of the new WIC contract brand increased by an average 74 percentage points after winning the contract. Most of this increase was a direct effect of WIC recipients switching to the new WIC contract brand. However, manufacturers also realized a spillover effect from winning the WIC contract whereby sales of formula purchased outside of the program also increased.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliveira, Victor & Frazao, Elizabeth & Smallwood, David M., 2011. "The Infant Formula Market: Consequences of a Change in the WIC Contract Brand," Economic Research Report 118020, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uersrr:118020
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.118020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/118020/files/ERR124.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.118020?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. Betson, David, 2009. "Impact of the WIC Program on the Infant Formula Market," Contractor and Cooperator Reports 292071, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Prell, Mark A., 2004. "An Economic Model Of Wic, The Infant Formula Rebate Program, And The Retail Price Of Infant Formula," Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Reports 33879, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Rui Huang & Jeffrey Perloff, 2014. "WIC Contract Spillover Effects," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(1), pages 49-71, February.
    4. Oliveira, Victor & Frazao, Elizabeth & Smallwood, David M., 2010. "Rising Infant Formula Costs to the WIC Program: Recent Trends in Rebates and Wholesale Prices," Economic Research Report 59384, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Oliveira, Victor & Davis, David E., 2006. "Recent Trends and Economic Issues in the WIC Infant Formula Rebate Program," MPRA Paper 6657, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Oliveira, Victor & Prell, Mark A. & Smallwood, David M. & Frazao, Elizabeth, 2004. "Wic And The Retail Price Of Infant Formula," Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Reports 33873, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    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. Rui Huang & Jeffrey Perloff, 2014. "WIC Contract Spillover Effects," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(1), pages 49-71, February.
    2. Katherine Meckel, 2020. "Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease? Unintended Effects of Payment Reform in a Quantity-Based Transfer Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(6), pages 1821-1865, June.
    3. David Davis, 2014. "Buyer Alliances as Countervailing Power in WIC Infant-Formula Auctions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 45(2), pages 121-138, September.
    4. Hodges, Leslie & Toossi, Saied & Todd, Jessica E. & Ryan-Claytor, Cayley, 2024. "The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2024 Edition," Economic Information Bulletin 341637, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Rojas Christian A. & Wei Hongli, 2019. "Spillover Mechanisms in the WIC Infant Formula Rebate Program," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Oliveira, Victor & Davis, David, 2015. "Manufacturers’ Bids for WIC Infant Formula Rebate Contracts, 2003-2013," Economic Information Bulletin 206808, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Oliveira, Victor & Frazao, Elizabeth & Smallwood, David, 2013. "Trends in Infant Formula Rebate Contracts: Implications for the WIC Program," Economic Information Bulletin 161130, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    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. Oliveira, Victor & Frazao, Elizabeth, 2015. "The WIC Program: Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2015 Edition," Economic Information Bulletin 197543, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. David E. Davis, 2012. "Bidding for WIC Infant Formula Contracts: Do Non-WIC Customers Subsidize WIC Customers?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 80-96.
    3. Hodges, Leslie & Toossi, Saied & Todd, Jessica E. & Ryan-Claytor, Cayley, 2024. "The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Background, Trends, and Economic Issues, 2024 Edition," Economic Information Bulletin 341637, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. David Davis, 2014. "Buyer Alliances as Countervailing Power in WIC Infant-Formula Auctions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 45(2), pages 121-138, September.
    5. Katherine Meckel, 2020. "Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease? Unintended Effects of Payment Reform in a Quantity-Based Transfer Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(6), pages 1821-1865, June.
    6. Oliveira, Victor & Frazao, Elizabeth & Smallwood, David, 2013. "Trends in Infant Formula Rebate Contracts: Implications for the WIC Program," Economic Information Bulletin 161130, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Saitone, Tina L. & Sexton, Richard J. & Volpe, Richard J., III, 2012. "Markups and Promotional Patterns of California WIC-Authorized Foods," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124927, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Rojas Christian A. & Wei Hongli, 2019. "Spillover Mechanisms in the WIC Infant Formula Rebate Program," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, November.
    9. David E. Davis, 2012. "Bidding for WIC Infant Formula Contracts: Do Non-WIC Customers Subsidize WIC Customers?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 80-96.
    10. Oliveira, Victor & Davis, David E., 2006. "Recent Trends and Economic Issues in the WIC Infant Formula Rebate Program," MPRA Paper 6657, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Rui Huang & Jeffrey Perloff, 2014. "WIC Contract Spillover Effects," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(1), pages 49-71, February.
    12. Oliveira, Victor, 2007. "Informing Food and Nutrition Assistance Policy: 10 Years of Research at ERS," Miscellaneous Publications 262274, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    13. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Richard J. Volpe, 2015. "A Wicked Problem? Cost Containment in the Women, Infants and Children Program," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 378-402.
    14. Oliveira, Victor & Davis, David, 2015. "Manufacturers’ Bids for WIC Infant Formula Rebate Contracts, 2003-2013," Economic Information Bulletin 206808, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    15. Levedahl, J. William & Reed, Albert J., 2012. "Net Taxpayer Cost of WIC Infant Formula," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124073, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Jackie Yenerall & Andrew Muhammad & Karen DeLong & Trey Malone, 2024. "Navigating the challenges of building a more resilient infant formula industry," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(2), pages 499-513, June.
    17. Stefania Albanesi & Claudia Olivetti, 2016. "Gender Roles and Medical Progress," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(3), pages 650-695.
    18. Prell, Mark A., 2004. "An Economic Model Of Wic, The Infant Formula Rebate Program, And The Retail Price Of Infant Formula," Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Reports 33879, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    19. Tiffany Green, 2011. "Infant feeding and asthma: is breast milk best?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 487-504, December.
    20. David Davis, 2014. "Buyer Alliances as Countervailing Power in WIC Infant-Formula Auctions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 45(2), pages 121-138, September.

    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:uersrr:118020. 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/ersgvus.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.