Journal of Regulatory Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 337–357 | Cite as

Taxes, minimum-quality standards and/or product labeling to improve environmental quality and welfare: Experiments can provide answers

  • Anne-Célia Disdier
  • Stéphan MaretteEmail author
Review Article


This study focuses on the welfare impact of taxes, minimum-quality standards, and/or product labeling. A theoretical framework shows that the combination of a label and a per-unit tax is socially optimal. Alternatively, if the label is unavailable, the theory cannot directly conclude which instrument should be socially preferred. Estimations of willingness-to-pay (WTP) are useful for completing the theoretical analysis and evaluating policies ex ante on case-by-case basis. Using hypothetical WTP for shrimp, we confirm that the combination of a label and a tax is socially optimal. In the absence of a label, simulations show that a minimum-quality standard leads to a higher welfare compared to a tax.


Regulatory instruments Environment Stated preference experiment Willingness-to-pay 

JEL Classification

C91 H23 Q51 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen S., Harrison G., Lau M., Rutström E. (2006) Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics 9: 383–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blend J. R, van Ravenswaay E. O (1999) Measuring consumer demand for ecolabeled apples. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(5): 1072–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colson, G., Rousu, M. C., & Huffman, W. E. (2008). Consumers willingness to pay for new genetically modified food products: Evidence from experimental auctions of intragenic and transgenic foods. Working Paper, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  4. Foster W., Just R. (1989) Measuring welfare effects of product contamination with consumer uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17: 266–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FranceAgriMer (2009). Bilan Annuel 2008: Consommation des Produits de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture. Direction Marchés, Etudes et Prospective, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  6. Goulder H., Parry I. W. H. (2008) Instrument choice in environmental policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2(2): 152–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hervieu, S. (2009). A Madagascar, la Seule Crevette d’Elevage Bio du Monde. Le Monde, April 1st, p. 4.Google Scholar
  8. Hu W., Veeman M. M., Adamowicz W. L. (2005) Labelling genetically modified food: Heterogeneous consumer preferences and the value of information. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53: 83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huffman W. E, Rousu M. C., Shogren J. F., Tegene A. (2003) The public good value of information from agribusinesses on genetically modified food. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 1309–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huffman W. E, Rousu M. C., Shogren J. F., Tegene A. (2007) The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified food. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63: 193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lusk J. L., House L. O., Valli C., Jaeger S. R., Moore M., Morrow B., Traill W. B. (2005) Consumer welfare effects of introducing and labeling genetically modified oood. Economics Letters 88: 382–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lusk J. L., Marette S. (2010) Welfare effects of food labels and bans with alternative willingness to pay measures. Applied Economic Perspectives & Policy 32(2): 319–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lusk J. L., Schroeder T. C. (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible: A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86(2): 467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lusk J. L., Shogren J. F. (2007) Experimental auctions. Methods and applications in economic and marketing research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marette S., Crespi J. (2003) Can quality certification lead to stable cartel. Review of Industrial Organization 23(1): 43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marette S., Crespi J. (2005) The financing of regulatory agencies. Journal of Regulatory Economics 27(1): 95–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marette S., Roosen J., Blanchemanche S. (2008) Health information and substitution between fish: Lessons from laboratory and field experiments. Food Policy 33: 197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marette S., Roosen J., Blanchemanche S. (2008) Taxes and subsidies to change eating habits when information is not enough: An application to fish consumption. Journal of Regulatory Economics 34: 119–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marette S., Roosen J., Blanchemanche S., Verger P. (2008) The choice of fish species: An experiment measuring the impact of risk and benefit information. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 33: 1–18Google Scholar
  20. Marette S., Roosen J., Blanchemanche S. (2011) The combination of lab and field experiments for benefit-cost analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2(3): 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Masters W. A., Sanogo D. (2002) Welfare gains from quality certification of infant foods: Results from a market experiment in mali. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84: 974–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murphy J. J., Allen P. G., Stevens T. H., Weatherhead D. (2005) A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 30(3): 313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Polinsky A. M., Rogerson W. (1983) Products liability and consumer misperceptions and market power. The Bell Journal of Economics 14: 581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roosen J., Marette S. (2011) Making the ‘right’ choice based on experiments: Regulatory decisions for food and health. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38(3): 361–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rousu M. C., Corrigan J. R. (2008) Estimating the welfare loss to consumers when food labels do not adequately inform: An application to fair trade certification. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 6(1): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rousu M. C., Huffman W. E., Shogren J. F., Tegene A. (2004) Estimating the public value of conflicting information: The case of genetically modified foods. Land Economics 80: 125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rousu M. C., Huffman W. E., Shogren J. F., Tegene A. (2007) Effects and value of verifiable information in a controversial market: Evidence from lab auctions of genetically modified food. Economic Inquiry 45: 409–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rousu M. C., Lusk J. L. (2009) Valuing information on GM foods in a WTA market: What information is most valuable?. AgBioForum 12(2): 226–231Google Scholar
  29. Rousu M. C., Shogren J. F. (2006) Valuing conflicting public information. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31: 642–652Google Scholar
  30. Sunstein C., Thaler R. H. (2003) Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review 70(4): 1159–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taylor L., Morrison M., Boyle K. J. (2010) Exchange rules and the incentive compatibility of choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 47(2): 197–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Teisl M. F. (2003) What we may have is a failure to communicate: Labeling environmentally certified forest products. Forest Science 49(5): 668–680Google Scholar
  33. Teisl M. F., Roe B. (2000) Environmental certification: Informing consumers about forest products. Journal of Forestry 98(2): 36–42Google Scholar
  34. Teisl M. F., Roe B., Hicks R. L. (2002) Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43: 339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wansink B., Sonka S., Hasler C. (2004) Front-label health claims: When less is more. Food Policy 29: 659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paris School of Economics-INRAParisFrance
  2. 2.INRA, UMR Economie Publique AgroParisTechThiverval-GrignonFrance

Personalised recommendations