Measuring the relative importance of preferences for country of origin in China, France, Niger, and the United States

Agricultural Economics

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 277-285

  Ehmke, Mariah D ^a   Lusk, Jayson L ^b   Tyner, Wallace ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING   (United States)

^b OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Purdue University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

China; Conjoint; Ethnocentric; France; Genetic modification; Niger; Onions; Origin

Indexed keywords

COMMODITY MARKET; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; CROP PRODUCTION; ETHNICITY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FOOD MARKET; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; ROOT VEGETABLE; TRANSGENIC PLANT;

AFRICA; ASIA; CHINA; EURASIA; EUROPE; FAR EAST; FRANCE; NIGER [NIGERIA]; NIGERIA; NORTH AMERICA; SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA; UNITED STATES; WEST AFRICA; WESTERN EUROPE;

ALLIUM CEPA;

EID: 43549104708     PISSN: 01695150     EISSN: 15740862     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00299.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Akaah, I.P., Korgaonkar, P.K., 1988. A conjoint investigation of the relative importance of risk relievers in direct marketing. J. Advert. Res. 28 (4 38 44.
2. Akerlof, G.A., 1970. The market for "lemons": quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84 (3 488 500.
3. Boyle, K.J., Holmes, T.P., Teisl, M.F., Roe, B., 2001. A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 83 (May 441 454.
4. Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T., James, S., 2001. Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 28 (4 479 498.
5. Caswell, J.A., Mojduszka, E.M., 1996. Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 78 (December 1248 1253.
6. Caswell, J.A., Padberg, D.I., 1992. Toward a more comprehensive theory of food labels. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 74 (2 460 468.
7. EUROPA, 2006. Agriculture and food. Available at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/agriculture/foodqual/quali1_en.htm (accessed 11 April 2006).
8. EUROPA, 2007. GM food and feed. Available at http://europa.eu/scadplus/ leg/en/lvb/l21154.htm (accessed 18 August 2007).
9. Feuz, D., Umberger, W.J., Calkins, C.R., Sitz, B., 2004. U.S. consumers' willingness to pay for flavor and tenderness in steaks as determined with an experimental auction. J. Agric. Res. Econ. 29 (3 501 516.
10. Glitsch, K., 2000. Consumer perceptions of fresh meat quality: cross-national comparison. Br. Food J. 102 (3 177 194.
11. Greene, W.H., 2003. Econometric analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
12. Harrison, G.W., Lesley, J.C., 1996. Must contingent valuation surveys cost so much? J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 31, 79 95.
13. Hoffman, R., 2000. Country of origin - a consumer perception perspective of fresh meat. Br. Food J. 102 (3 211 229.
14. Krissof, B., Kuchler, F., Nelson, K., Perry, J., Somwaru, A., 2004. Country-of-origin labeling: fact and observation. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Service.
15. Kushwaha, S, Musa, A.S., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Fulton, J., 2004. Consumer acceptance of GMO cowpeas in Sub-Sahara Africa. Long Paper #119265, presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. Denver, Colorado.
16. Lancaster, K., 1991. Modern consumer theory. Edward Elgar, New York.
17. Loureiro, M.L., Umberger, W.J., 2003. Estimating consumer willingness to pay for country-of-origin labeling. J. Agric. Res. Econ. 28 (2 287 301.
18. Lusk, J.L., Brown, J., Mark, T., Proseku, I., Thomson, R., Welsh, J., 2006. Consumer behavior and country of origin labeling. Rev. Agric. Econ. 28, 284 292.
19. Lusk, J.L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., Taulman, L., 2005. A meta analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. J. Agric. Res. Econ. 30 (April 28 44.
20. Lusk, J.L., Schroeder, T.C., 2004. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86 (2 467 482.
21. McFadden, D., 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In : Zarembka, P. (Ed Structural Analysis of Discrete Data, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
22. Schupp, A., Gillespie, J., 2001. Consumer attitudes toward potential country-of-origin labeling of fresh and frozen beef. J. Food Dist. Res. 32(3), 34 44.
23. Shimp, T.A., Sharma, S., 1987. Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the CETSCALE. J. Market. Res. XXIV (August 280 289.
24. Sriram, V., Forman, A.M., 1993. The relative importance of products' environmental attributes: a cross-cultural comparison. Int. Market. Rev. 10 (3 51 70.
25. The Economist, 2005. A sweet rice pudding. Economist 375 (8424 77.
26. Umberger, W.J., Feuz, D.M., Calkins, C.R., Killinger-Mann, K., 2002. U.S. consumer preference and willingness-to-pay for domestic corn-fed beef versus international grass-fed beef measured through an experimental auction. Agribusiness 18 (4 491 504.
27. Umberger, W.J., Feuz, D.M., Calkins, C.R., Sitz, B.M., 2003. Country-of-origin labeling of beef products: U.S. consumers' perceptions. J. Food Dist. Res. 34 (3 103 116.
28. Verlegh, P.W.J., Steenkamp, J.B.E.M., 1999. A review of meta-analysis of country-of-origin research. J. Econ. Psych. 20, 521 546.
29. World Bank, 2003. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC.