Most infectious diseases in humans originate from animals. In this paper, we explore the role of animal farming and meat consumption in the emergence and amplification of infectious diseases. First, we discuss how meat production increases epidemic risks, either directly through increased contact with wild and farmed animals or indirectly through its impact on the environment (e.g., biodiversity loss, water use, climate change). Traditional food systems such as bushmeat and backyard farming increase the risks of disease transmission from wild animals, while intensive farming amplifies the impact of the disease due to the high density, genetic proximity, increased immunodeficiency, and live transport of farmed animals. Second, we describe the various direct and indirect costs of animal-based infectious diseases, and in particular, how these diseases can negatively impact the economy and the environment. Last, we discuss policies to reduce the social costs of infectious diseases. While existing regulatory frameworks such as the "One Health" approach focus on increasing farms' biosecurity and emergency preparedness, we emphasize the need to better align stakeholders' incentives and to reduce meat consumption. We discuss in particular the implementation of a "zoonotic" Pigouvian tax, and innovations such as insectbased food or cultured meat.
In this article, we derive a set of simple conditions such that ambiguity aversion always raises the demand for self-insurance and the insurance coverage, but decreases the demand for self-protection. We also characterise the optimal insurance design under ambiguity aversion and exhibit a case in which the straight deductible contract is optimal as in the expected utility model. Almost all models used in insurance economics up to now have been based on subjective expected utility theory. Therefore, this literature has assumed that ambiguity over probabilities does not matter for decisions. This assumption is inconsistent with many experimental results (Camerer, 1995). The most famous observation illustrating violation 6 of the subjective expected utility theory is the Ellsberg (1961) paradox. The paradox can be explained by ambiguity aversion, which can be thought of as an aversion to any mean-preserving spread in the space of probabilities. For example, ambiguityaverse agents prefer the lottery that yields a specific gain with a probability 1/2 to another lottery, in which the probability of earning the same gain is uncertain, but with a subjective mean of 1/2 (e.g. if the agent believes that the probability is either 1/4 or 3/4 with equal probability); see for example, Halevy (2007) for recent experimental evidence. This psychological trait differs from risk aversion, which is an aversion to any mean-preserving spread in the pay-off of the lottery. Since the seminal work by Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989), decision theorists have proposed various decision models that exhibit a form of ambiguity aversion (for a literature survey, see Etner et al., (2012)).In this article, we study the effect of ambiguity aversion on insurance and selfprotection decisions using the theory of ambiguity axiomatised by Klibanoff et al. (2005). This theory captures the idea that mean-preserving spreads in probabilities reduce the welfare of ambiguity-averse agents. Also, this theory permits us to separate the effect of ambiguity aversion from that of risk aversion. Therefore, our results permit us to examine whether the effect of ambiguity aversion on insurance and self-protection differs from that of risk aversion.Several papers have studied the effect of risk aversion on insurance and self-protection within the subjective expected utility model. A well-known result is that risk aversion increases the demand for insurance, that is, it raises the coverage rate, and it reduces the straight deductible. Indeed, in the case of coinsurance, this result is a direct
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.
Abstract:Environmental issues provide a rich ground for identifying the existence and consequences of human limitations. In this paper, we present a growing literature lying at the interface between behavioral and environmental economics. This literature identifies alternative solutions to traditional economic instruments in environmental domains that often work imperfectly. But it also faces a set of challenges, including the difficulty of computing welfare effects, and the identification of a robust environmental policy based on context-dependent (socio-) psychological effects. We illustrate our critical discussion with two behavioral schemes that have been widely implemented: "green nudges" and "corporate environmental responsibility."
Global commons problems, such as climate change, are often affected by severe uncertainty. The paper examines the effect of uncertainty on pollution emissions and welfare in a strategic context. We find that emissions are always lower under uncertainty than under certainty, reflecting risk-reducing considerations. We show that uncertainty can have a net positive impact on the welfare of risk-averse polluters. We extend the analysis to increases in risk, increases in risk-aversion, and risk heterogeneity. A policy implication is that the establishment of risk-sharing institutions should generally not predate arrangements addressing the commons problem.JEL: D81, C72, Q54, H23
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. We show that ambiguity aversion increases the value of a statistical life as soon as the marginal utility of wealth is higher if alive than dead. The intuition is that ambiguity aversion has a similar effect as an increase in the perceived baseline mortality risk, and thus operates as the "dead anyway" effect. We suggest, however, that ambiguity aversion should usually have a modest effect on the prevention of ambiguous mortality risks within benefit-cost analysis, and can hardly justify the substantial "ambiguity premium" apparently embodied in environmental policy-making. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor mayJEL Code: D81, Q51, I18.
This article illustrates how the joint elicitation of subjective probabilities and preferences may help us understand behavior in games. We conduct an experiment to test whether biased probabilistic beliefs may explain overbidding in first-price auctions. The experimental outcomes indicate that subjects underestimate their probability of winning the auction, and indeed overbid. When provided with feedback on the precision of their predictions, subjects learn to make better predictions, and to curb significantly overbidding. The structural estimation of different behavioral models suggests that biased probabilistic beliefs are a driving force behind overbidding, and that risk aversion plays a lesser role than previously believed. Copyright � (2009) by the Economics Department of the University of Pennsylvania and the Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.