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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Andersen S., Harrison G., Lau M., Rutström E. (2006) Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics 9: 383–405
Blend J. R, van Ravenswaay E. O (1999) Measuring consumer demand for ecolabeled apples. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(5): 1072–1077
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.
Foster W., Just R. (1989) Measuring welfare effects of product contamination with consumer uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17: 266–283
FranceAgriMer (2009). Bilan Annuel 2008: Consommation des Produits de la Pêche et de l’Aquaculture. Direction Marchés, Etudes et Prospective, Paris, France.
Goulder H., Parry I. W. H. (2008) Instrument choice in environmental policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2(2): 152–174
Hervieu, S. (2009). A Madagascar, la Seule Crevette d’Elevage Bio du Monde. Le Monde, April 1st, p. 4.
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: 83–102
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: 1309–1315
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: 193–206
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: 382–388
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): 319–337
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): 467–482
Lusk J. L., Shogren J. F. (2007) Experimental auctions. Methods and applications in economic and marketing research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Marette S., Crespi J. (2003) Can quality certification lead to stable cartel. Review of Industrial Organization 23(1): 43–64
Marette S., Crespi J. (2005) The financing of regulatory agencies. Journal of Regulatory Economics 27(1): 95–113
Marette S., Roosen J., Blanchemanche S. (2008) Health information and substitution between fish: Lessons from laboratory and field experiments. Food Policy 33: 197–208
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: 119–143
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: 1–18
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): 1–35
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: 974–989
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): 313–325
Polinsky A. M., Rogerson W. (1983) Products liability and consumer misperceptions and market power. The Bell Journal of Economics 14: 581–589
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): 361–381
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): 1–21
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: 125–135
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: 409–432
Rousu M. C., Lusk J. L. (2009) Valuing information on GM foods in a WTA market: What information is most valuable?. AgBioForum 12(2): 226–231
Rousu M. C., Shogren J. F. (2006) Valuing conflicting public information. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 31: 642–652
Sunstein C., Thaler R. H. (2003) Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review 70(4): 1159–1202
Taylor L., Morrison M., Boyle K. J. (2010) Exchange rules and the incentive compatibility of choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics 47(2): 197–220
Teisl M. F. (2003) What we may have is a failure to communicate: Labeling environmentally certified forest products. Forest Science 49(5): 668–680
Teisl M. F., Roe B. (2000) Environmental certification: Informing consumers about forest products. Journal of Forestry 98(2): 36–42
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: 339–359
Wansink B., Sonka S., Hasler C. (2004) Front-label health claims: When less is more. Food Policy 29: 659–667
About this article
Cite this article
Disdier, A., Marette, S. Taxes, minimum-quality standards and/or product labeling to improve environmental quality and welfare: Experiments can provide answers. J Regul Econ 41, 337–357 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-011-9167-y
- Regulatory instruments
- Stated preference experiment