We compare the ability of three preference elicitation methods (hypothetical choices, nonhypothetical choices, and nonhypothetical rankings) and three discrete-choice econometric models (the multinomial logit [MNL], the independent availability logit [IAL], and the random parameter logit [RPL]) to predict actual retail shopping behavior in three different product categories (ground beef, wheat flour, and dishwashing liquid). Overall, we find a high level of external validity. Our specific results suggest that the nonhypothetical elicitation approaches, especially the nonhypothetical ranking method, outperformed the hypothetical choice experiment in predicting retail sales. We also find that the RPL can have superior predictive performance, but that the MNL predicts equally well in some circumstances.

In this article, we investigate the effect of several commonly used experimental designs on willingness-to-pay in a Monte Carlo environment where true utility parameters are known. All experimental designs considered in this study generated unbiased valuation estimates. However, random designs or designs that explicitly incorporated attribute interactions generated more precise valuation estimates than main effects only designs. A key result of our analysis is that a large sample size can substitute for a poor experimental design. Overall, our results indicate that certain steps can be taken to achieve a manageably sized experimental design without sacrificing the credibility of welfare estimates. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Both bodies of the U.S. Congress have recently considered legislation to restrict use of antibiotics in livestock feed. Although several studies have addressed the costs of such restrictions, little is known about consumer demand. This study estimates consumers' willingness to pay for pork produced without subtherapeutic antibiotics and consumers' willingness to contribute to a reduction in antibiotic resistance by collecting data in a grocery store environment with mechanisms that involve the exchange of real food and real money. Results indicate that the welfare effects of a ban depend heavily on assumptions about consumers' current knowledge about antibiotic use in pork production and the extent to which consumers are currently able to purchase antibiotic-free pork. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

No abstract

This article highlights some key areas where economics can contribute to the current debate about animal welfare. Production economics reveals that producers will not maximize animal welfare, even if animal well‐being is highly correlated with output. Welfare economics raises thorny issues about the double‐counting of benefits when humans exhibit altruism towards animals, while public economics uncovers potential market failures and possible solutions. Consumer economics provides a means of determining human and animal benefits from animal well‐being policies in dollar terms. Overall, economists have much to contribute to the animal welfare debate and the well‐being of humans and animals could be improved with more economic analysis on the effects of private and government actions related to animal welfare.