Search

NGOs often vary in terms of how radical they are. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of NGO discourses in bringing about social change. We focus on animal advocacy: welfarist NGOs primarily seek to improve the conditions in which animals are raised and reduce meat consumption, whereas abolitionist NGOs categorically reject animal use and call for a vegan society. We design an experiment to study the respective impact of welfarist and abolitionist discourses on participants' beliefs regarding pro‐meat justifications and their actions, namely their propensity to engage in the short run in animal welfare (charity donation, petition against intensive farming) and plant‐based diets (subscription to a newsletter promoting plant‐based diets, petition supporting vegetarian meals). We first show that both welfarist and abolitionist discourses significantly undermine participants' pro‐meat justifications. Second, the welfarist discourse does not significantly affect participants' actions, although we detect a potential backlash effect of the abolitionist discourse. We show that the NGOs' positive standard effect on actions through the change in beliefs is outweighed by a negative behavioral response to the discourses (reactance effect). Last, greater public‐good contributions are associated with greater engagement in animal welfare in the presence of an NGO discourse.

This paper studies the role of risk attitudes in determining the optimality of winner-take-all contests. We compare the typical singlewinner lottery contest with two alternatives, both spreading the rewards tomore players: through holding multiple prize-giving lottery competitions or through guaranteeing a bottom prize for the losers. In the first comparison, we find that the multiple-competition contest is as effective as the winner-take-all contest when the contestants are risk neutral, but the former induces more effort than the latter when the contestants are both risk averse and prudent. In the second comparison, we find that the contest with a bottom prize is always dominated by the winner-take-all contest when the contestants are risk neutral, but the former could have an advantage over the latter when the contestants are both risk averse and prudent, and it is more likely so as the contestants become more prudent.

International audience; NGOs often vary in terms of how radical they are. In this paper, we explore the effec-tiveness of NGO discourses in bringing about social change. We focus on animal advocacy:welfarist NGOs primarily seek to improve the conditions in which animals are raised and re-duce meat consumption, while abolitionist NGOs categorically reject animal use and call fora vegan society. We design an experiment to study the respective impact of welfarist and abo-litionist discourses on participants’ beliefs regarding pro-meat justifications and their actions,namely their propensity to engage in the short-run in animal welfare (charity donation, peti-tion against intensive farming) and plant-based diets (subscription to a newsletter promotingplant-based diets, petition supporting vegetarian meals). We first show that both welfarist andabolitionist discourses significantly undermine participants’ pro-meat justifications. Second,the welfarist discourse does not significantly affect participants’ actions, while we detect a po-tential backlash effect of the abolitionist discourse. We show that the NGOs’ positive standardeffect on actions through the change in beliefs is outweighed by a negative behavioral responseto the discourses (reactance effect). Last, greater public-good contributions are associated withgreater engagement in animal welfare in the presence of an NGO discourse.

Meat consumption has increased significantly in the last 50 years. This trend raises various health and environmental issues, as well as moral concerns regarding farm animal welfare. In this paper, we discuss the regulation of meat consumption in developed countries. Specifically, we discuss possible justifications for this regulation in terms of environmental, health and animal welfare considerations, as well as the effect of fiscal, informational and behavioral regulatory instruments. Finally, we present a list of challenges that policy makers and food scholars may need to confront in the future.

Environmental, transportation, occupational, and other regulations that reduce fatality risk are frequently evaluated using benefit-cost analysis (BCA). We examine how risk reductions are valued under BCA, utilitarian and prioritarian SWFs. The social value of risk reduction (SVRR) to an individual is the rate of increase of social welfare for a small decrease to the individual’s current-period fatality risk. Under BCA, the SVRR is the individual’s value per statistical life (VSL), which is increasing in wealth and baseline risk. Under utilitarian and prioritarian SWFs, the SVRR is far less sensitive to income; it can decrease with income for prioritarian SWFs that exhibit sufficient inequality aversion. The SVRR increases with or is independent of baseline risk. Like VSL, it can increase or decrease with age, but prioritarian SWFs assign larger SVRR to younger relative to older individuals than does the utilitarian SWF. Extensions to catastrophe aversion and nonfatal health risks are discussed.

International audience; Meat consumption has increased significantly in the last 50 years. This trend raises various health and environmental issues, as well as moral concerns regarding farm animal welfare. In this paper, we discuss the regulation of meat consumption in developed countries. Specifically, we discuss possible justifications for this regulation in terms of environmental, health and animal welfare considerations, as well as the effect of fiscal, informational and behavioral regulatory instruments. Finally, we present a list of challenges that policy makers and food scholars may need to confront in the future.

NGOs often vary in terms of how radical they are. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of NGO discourses in bringing about social change. We focus on animal advocacy: welfarist NGOs primarily seek to improve the conditions in which animals are raised and reduce meat consumption, while abolitionist NGOs categorically reject animal use and call for a vegan society. We design an experiment to study the respective impact of welfarist and abolitionist discourses on participants’ beliefs regarding pro-meat justifications and their actions, namely their propensity to engage in the short-run in animal welfare (charity donation, petition against intensive farming) and plant-based diets (subscription to a newsletter promoting plant-based diets, petition supporting vegetarian meals). We first show that both welfarist and abolitionist discourses significantly undermine participants’ pro-meat justifications. Second, the welfarist discourse does not significantly affect participants’ actions, while we detect a potential backlash effect of the abolitionist discourse. We show that the NGOs’ positive standard effect on actions through the change in beliefs is outweighed by a negative behavioral response to the discourses (reactance effect). Last, greater public-good contributions are associated with greater engagement in animal welfare in the presence of an NGO discourse.

National audience; La pandémie COVID-19 nous rappelle l’importance des problèmes sanitaires à l’interface entre l’Humain, l’animal et l’environnement : près des deux tiers des maladies infectieuses humaines proviennent de pathogènes partagés avec des animaux sauvages ou domestiques. Alors que le nombre de personnes atteintes de maladies infectieuses diminue, notamment dans les régions occidentales, paradoxalement le nombre d’épidémies infectieuses continue de croître. Le rôle joué par la dégradation des écosystèmes, notamment la déforestation, dans le phénomène de « saut de la barrière des espèces » est questionné, de même que, plus généralement, celui de nos modes de vie (régimes et filières alimentaires, commerce…). Ainsi, cette pandémie suggère non seulement de réévaluer les politiques publiques existantes de contrôle et gestion sanitaires, mais aussi de voir comment celles-ci devraient être complétées au niveau de l’orientation des comportements économiques. Pour prévenir les futures épidémies et en réduire les impacts, il importe de comprendre quels mécanismes génèrent les épidémies et l’augmentation de leur fréquence ou sévérité ; en particulier dans quelle mesure les changements globaux et les facteurs anthropiques modifient la donne. S’il est difficile, voire illusoire, d’empêcher les animaux de développer des maladies transmissibles aux humains, et nécessaire de contrôler leur apparition et de gérer les conséquences sanitaires et économiques, un des moyens pour diminuer les risques d’épidémie consisterait à agir aussi en amont. A cet égard, la préservation des habitats naturels, la diminution de la consommation carnée, la réduction de la taille des élevages intensifs et l’arrêt de la commercialisation (légale ou non) de la viande d’animaux sauvages constitueraient autant de mesures cohérentes et efficaces pour des politiques de santé publique de demain « une seule santé ».

Governments sometimes encourage or impose individual self-protection measures, such as wearing a protective mask when going outside during an epidemic. However, by reducing the risk of being infected by others, more self-protection may lead each individual to go outside more often. In the absence of lockdown, this creates a “collective offsetting effect”, since more people outside means that the risk of infection is increased for all. Yet, wearing masks also creates a positive externality on others, by reducing the risk of infecting them. We show how to integrate these different effects in a simple model, and we discuss when self-protection efforts should be encouraged (or deterred) by a social planner.

In this paper, we discuss the health impact of animal agriculture through air pollution. While this impact is potentially considerable, we argue that it has been largely overlooked by regulators as well as by researchers, and in particular by economists. We discuss the methods, results, limitations, and uncertainties of existing scientific studies on this impact, and conclude with a tentative discussion of the regulation of air pollution in agriculture.

It has been established in the literature that, under the assumption of risk-neutral contestants, it is usually optimal for an effort-maximizing contest organizer with a fixed prize budget to award everything to a single winner. This paper studies the role of risk attitudes – risk aversion and prudence in particular – in determining the optimality of winner-take-all contests. We compare the typical single-winner lottery contest with two alternative ways of spreading the rewards to more players: through holding multiple prize-giving lottery competitions or through guaranteeing a bottom prize for the losers. In the first comparison, we found that the multiple-competition contest is as effective as the winner-take-all contest when the contestants are risk neutral, but the former induces more effort than the latter when the contestants are both risk averse and prudent. In the second comparison, we found that the contest with a bottom prize is always dominated by the winner-take-all contest when the contestants are risk neutral, but the former could have an advantage over the latter when the contestants are both risk averse and prudent, and it is more likely so as the contestants become more prudent.

Many individuals have empathetic feelings towards animals but frequently consume meat. We investigate this "meat paradox" using insights from the literature on motivated reasoning in moral dilemmata. We develop a model where individuals form self-serving beliefs about the suffering of animals caused by meat consumption in order to alleviate the guilt associated with their dietary choices. The model makes several specific predictions: in particular, it predicts a positive relationship between individuals' taste for meat and their propensity to engage in self-deception, a high price elasticity of demand for meat, and a causal effect of prices and aggregate consumption on individual beliefs.

Economics is not interested in animals. The object of this paper is to stimulate research in economics about animals and about veganism. By veganism, we mean all types of behaviors which consist in modifying (and not only eliminating) the use and the consumption of animals for moral reasons. We propose a selective introduction to the topic, focused on meat consumption and on the treatment of farm animals. Meat is at the crossroads nowadays because of its health and environmental externalities, and because of the rise of vegetarianism in developed countries. The economics of veganism –or veganomics– can help better understand the behavior of consumers (omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians) as well as its implications for the strategies of producers, animal activists and policy makers, and in turn better understand a world in which the relation between humans and animals can profoundly evolve.

International audience; In this paper, we consider an intergroup contest game with intragroup altruism. We show that more altruism within a group increases conflict intensity by increasing total groups' efforts. Moreover, we show that, unlike the celebrated Olson's group size paradox, group size increases the probability of winning the contest provided that intragroup altruism is high enough.

In light of climate change and other global threats, policy commentators sometimes urge that society should be more concerned about catastrophes. This paper reflects on what society’s attitude toward low-probability, high-impact events is, or should be. We first argue that catastrophe risk can be conceived of as a spread in the distribution of losses. Based on this conception, we review studies from decision sciences, psychology, and behavioral economics that elicit people’s attitudes toward various social risks. We find more evidence against than in favor of catastrophe aversion—the preference for a mean-preserving contraction of the loss distribution—and discuss a number of possible behavioral explanations. Next, we turn to social choice theory and examine how various social welfare functions handle catastrophe risk. We explain why catastrophe aversion may be in conflict with equity concerns and other-regarding preferences. Finally, we discuss current approaches to evaluate and regulate catastrophe risk.

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a monetary measure of the harms from carbon emission. Specifically, it is the reduction in current consumption that produces a loss in social welfare equivalent to that caused by the emission of a ton of CO2. The standard approach is to calculate the SCC using a discounted-utilitarian social welfare function (SWF)—one that simply adds up the well-being numbers (utilities) of individuals, as discounted by a weighting factor that decreases with time. The discounted-utilitarian SWF has been criticized both for ignoring the distribution of well-being, and for including an arbitrary preference for earlier generations. Here, we use a prioritarian SWF, with no time-discount factor, to calculate the SCC in the integrated assessment model RICE. Prioritarianism is a well-developed concept in ethics and theoretical welfare economics, but has been, thus far, little used in climate scholarship. The core idea is to give greater weight to well-being changes affecting worse off individuals. We find substantial differences between the discounted-utilitarian and non-discounted prioritarian SCC.