IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/wpaper/129033.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Animal-Welfare Levy

Author

Listed:
  • Treich, Nicolas
  • Espinosa, Romain

Abstract

We provide a non-anthropocentric rationale for implementing a levy on meat consumption due to animal-welfare considerations. It operates as a Pigouvian tax and addresses externalities on farmed animals. Under total utilitarianism, the levy is a subsidy when an animal’s life is worth living, and a tax when it is not. Under average utilitarianism, it is always a tax when human welfare exceeds animal welfare. Even under conservative assumptions, calibrated tax levels are substantial and would make most-intensive animal farms unprofitable. Taxes are significantly higher for chickens and pigs than for cows, in contrast to the taxation of other meat externalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Treich, Nicolas & Espinosa, Romain, 2024. "The Animal-Welfare Levy," TSE Working Papers 24-1503, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    • Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:129033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2024/wp_tse_1503.pdf
    File Function: Full Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mikhail Golosov & Larry E. Jones & Michèle Tertilt, 2007. "Efficiency with Endogenous Population Growth," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(4), pages 1039-1071, July.
    2. Säll, Sarah & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-53.
    3. Blackorby,Charles & Bossert,Walter & Donaldson,David J., 2005. "Population Issues in Social Choice Theory, Welfare Economics, and Ethics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521532587, November.
    4. Koen Decancq & Dirk Neumann, 2014. "Does the Choice of Well-Being Measure Matter Empirically?: An Illustration with German Data," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 717, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    5. Gary S. Becker & H. Gregg Lewis, 1974. "Interaction between Quantity and Quality of Children," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, pages 81-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Marco Springmann & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Sherman Robinson & Keith Wiebe & H Charles J Godfray & Mike Rayner & Peter Scarborough, 2018. "Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: A modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, November.
    7. Thomas Eichner & Marco Runkel, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Moral Consumers and the Optimal Regulation of Animal Food Production," CESifo Working Paper Series 10149, CESifo.
    8. Marc Daube & David Ulph, 2016. "Moral Behaviour, Altruism and Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 505-522, February.
    9. Bovenberg, A. Lans & Goulder, Lawrence H., 2002. "Environmental taxation and regulation," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 23, pages 1471-1545, Elsevier.
    10. Thomas Baudin, 2011. "Family Policies: What Does the Standard Endogenous Fertility Model Tell Us?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(4), pages 555-593, August.
    11. Partha Dasgupta & Dale Southerton & Alistair Ulph & David Ulph, 2016. "Consumer Behaviour with Environmental and Social Externalities: Implications for Analysis and Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(1), pages 191-226, September.
    12. Williamson, Patrick, 2021. "A New Argument Against Critical-Level Utilitarianism," Utilitas, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 399-416, December.
    13. Barro, Robert J & Becker, Gary S, 1989. "Fertility Choice in a Model of Economic Growth," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 481-501, March.
    14. Matthew Clarke & Yew-Kwang Ng, 2006. "Population Dynamics and Animal Welfare: Issues Raised by the Culling of Kangaroos in Puckapunyal," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(2), pages 407-422, October.
    15. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 1999. "Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 681-708, December.
    16. Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2006. "Efficient nonanthropocentric nature protection," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 47-74, January.
    17. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Corre, Tifenn, 2018. "An Environmental Tax Towards More Sustainable Food: Empirical Evidence of the Consumption of Animal Products in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 48-61.
    18. Celine Bonnet & Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache & Tifenn Corre, 2018. "An environmental tax towards more sustainable food: empirical evidence of the consumption of animal products in France," Post-Print hal-02626207, HAL.
    19. Nerlove, Marc & Razin, Assaf & Sadka, Efraim, 1986. "Some Welfare Theoretic Implications of Endogenous Fertility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(1), pages 3-31, February.
    20. Marc Fleurbaey & Martin Van der Linden, 2021. "Fair Social Ordering, Egalitarianism, and Animal Welfare," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 466-491, November.
    21. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1992. "Pigs and Guinea Pigs: A Note on the Ethics of Animal Exploitation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(415), pages 1345-1369, November.
    22. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2018. "Animal Welfare and Social Decisions: Is It Time to Take Bentham Seriously?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 90-103.
    23. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1986. "Social criteria for evaluating population change: An alternative to the Blackorby-Donaldson criterion," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 375-381, April.
    24. Grégory Ponthière, 2003. "Utilitarian population ethics: a survey," CREPP Working Papers 0303, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    25. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199551163.
    26. James Hammitt, 2013. "Admissible utility functions for health, longevity, and wealth: integrating monetary and life-year measures," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 311-325, December.
    27. van Groezen, Bas & Leers, Theo & Meijdam, Lex, 2003. "Social security and endogenous fertility: pensions and child allowances as siamese twins," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 233-251, February.
    28. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    29. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1984. "Social criteria for evaluating population change," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1-2), pages 13-33, November.
    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. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2024. "Beyond anthropocentrism in agricultural and resource economics," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 68(3), pages 541-566, July.
    2. Stelter, Robert, 2016. "Over-aging — Are present-day human populations too old?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 116-143.
    3. Thomas Baudin, 2011. "Family Policies: What Does the Standard Endogenous Fertility Model Tell Us?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(4), pages 555-593, August.
    4. de la Croix, David & Doepke, Matthias, 2021. "A soul’s view of the optimal population problem," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-108.
    5. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2024. "Animal welfare as a public good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    6. Nicolas Treich, 2022. "The Dasgupta Review and the Problem of Anthropocentrism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(4), pages 973-997, December.
    7. Stelter, Robert, 2014. "Over-aging: Are present human populations too old?," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 137, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    8. Oliwia Komada, 2015. "Children as a public good in PAYG pension system," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 43.
    9. Cordoba, Juan Carlos & Liu, Xiying, 2018. "Efficiency with Endogenous Population and Fixed Resources," ISU General Staff Papers 201811010700001062, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Marla Ripoll & Juan Carlos Cordoba, 2011. "A Contribution to the Economic Theory of Fertility," 2011 Meeting Papers 1207, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    11. Carlier, Alexis & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Directly Valuing Animal Welfare in (Environmental) Economics," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 14(1), pages 113-152, April.
    12. Romain Espinosa & Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Animal welfare: antispeciesism, veganism and a “life worth living”," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(3), pages 531-548, April.
    13. Spataro, Luca & Renström, Thomas I., 2012. "Optimal taxation, critical-level utilitarianism and economic growth," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 727-738.
    14. Gregory Ponthiere, 2016. "Utilitarian population ethics and births timing," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 117(3), pages 189-238, April.
    15. Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Inge van den Bijgaart & H. Charles J. Godfray & Cameron Hepburn & David Klenert & Marco Springmann & Nicolas Treich, 2022. "Toward Optimal Meat Pricing: Is It Time to Tax Meat Consumption?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(2), pages 219-240.
    16. Thomas Renström & Luca Spataro, 2011. "The optimum growth rate for population under critical-level utilitarianism," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 24(3), pages 1181-1201, July.
    17. Mark Budolfson & Romain Espinosa & Bob Fischer & Nicolas Treich, 2024. "Monetizing Animal Welfare Impacts for Benefit–Cost Analysis," Post-Print hal-04645320, HAL.
    18. Juan Carlos Córdoba, 2023. "Utilitarianism versus the repugnant conclusion," Indian Economic Review, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 163-180, July.
    19. Thomas Baudin, 2012. "The Optimal Trade-Off Between Quality and Quantity with Unknown Number of Survivors," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 94-113, April.
    20. Meier, Volker & Wrede, Matthias, 2010. "Pensions, fertility, and education," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 75-93, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Animal welfare; meat; Pigouvian taxation; utilitarianism; life worth; living; quality-adjusted life years; population ethics.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    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:tse:wpaper:129033. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tsetofr.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.