Fifteen years of experimental auctions of GM foods: What have we learned about policy, preferences, and auction design?

AgBioForum

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 320-326

  Rousu, Matthew C ^a  

^a SUSQUEHANNA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Experimental auctions; GM foods

Indexed keywords

EID: 84958150173     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1522936X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Akaichi, F., Nayga Jr., R.M., & Gil, J.M. (2012). Initial endowment effects in multi-unit Vickrey auctions. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 2(4), 41-55.
2. Alfnes, F. (2009). Valuing product attributes in Vickrey auctions when market substitutes are available. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 36(2), 133-149.
3. Buhr, B.L., Hayes, D.J., Shogren, J.F., & Kliebenstein, J.B. (1993). Valuing ambiguity: The case of genetically engineered growth enhancers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 18, 175-184.
4. Colson, G.J., Huffman, W.E., & Rousu, M.C. (2011). Improving the nutrient content of food through genetic modification: Evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 36(2), 343-364.
5. Colson, G., & Rousu, M.C. (2013). What do consumer surveys and experiments reveal and conceal about consumer preferences for genetically modified foods? GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain, 4(3), 158-165.
6. Corrigan, J.R., & Rousu, M.C. (2006a). Posted prices and bid affiliation: Evidence from experimental auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(4), 1078-1090.
7. Corrigan, J.R., & Rousu, M.C. (2006b). The effect of initial endowments in experimental auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(2), 448-457.
8. Corrigan, J.R., Drichoutis, A.C., Lusk, J.L., Nayga, R.M., & Rousu, M.C. (2012). Repeated rounds with price feedback in experimental auction valuation: An adversarial collaboration. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(1), 97-115.
9. Dannenberg, A. (2009). The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food-A metaanalysis. Ecological Economics, 68(8-9), 2182-2192.
10. Fox, J.A., Buhr, B.L., Shogren, J.F., Kliebenstein, J.B., & Hayes, D.J. (1995). A comparison of preferences for pork sandwiches produced from animals with and without somatotropin administration. Journal of Animal Science, 73(4), 1048-1054.
11. Gallet, C. A., & List, J. A. (2003). Cigarette demand: A meta-analysis of elasticities. Health Economics, 12(10), 821-835.
12. Hayes, D.J., Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., & Kliebenstein, J.B. (1995). Valuing food safety in experimental auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(1), 40-53.
13. House, L., Lusk, J., Jaeger, S., Traill, W.B., Moore, M., Valli, C., & Yee, W.M. (2005). Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union. AgBioForum, 7(3), 113-123. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
14. Hoffman, E., Menkhaus, D.J., Chakravarti, D., Field, R.A., & Whipple, G.D. (1993). Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: A case study of new packaging for fresh beef. Marketing Science, 12(3), 318-338.
15. Huffman, W.E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J.F., & Tegene, A. (2004). The welfare effects of implementing mandatory GM labelling in the USA. In R.E. Evenson & V. Santaniello (Eds.), Consumer acceptance of genetically modified food (pp. 41-53). Cambridge, MA: CAB International.
16. Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., Rousu, M., & Tegene, A. (2003). Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food labels in a market with diverse information: Evidence from experimental auctions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 28, 481-502.
17. Jaeger, S.R., Lusk, J.L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Moore, M., Morrow, B., & Traill, W.B. (2004). The use of non-hypothetical experimental markets for measuring the acceptance of genetically modified foods. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7), 701-714.
18. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., & Thaler, R.H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
19. Kikulwe, E.M., Birol, E., Wesseler, J., & Falck-Zepeda, J. (2011). A latent class approach to investigating demand for genetically modified banana in Uganda. Agricultural Economics, 42, 547-560.
20. List, J.A., & Shogren, J.F. (1999). Price information and bidding behavior in repeated second-price auctions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(4), 942-949.
21. Lusk, J.L., Daniel, M.S., Mark, D.R., & Lusk, C.L. (2001). Alternative calibration and auction institutions for predicting consumer willingness-to-pay for non-genetically modified corn chips. Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics, 26, 40-57.
22. Lusk, J.L., Feldkamp, T., & Schroeder, T.C. (2004). Experimental auction procedure: Impact on valuation of quality differentiated goods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2), 389-405.
23. Lusk, J.L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S.R., Moore, M., Morrow, B., & Traill, W.B. (2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31, 179-204.
24. Lusk, J.L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., & Taulman, L. (2005). A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 30(1), 28-44.
25. Lusk, J.L., & Shogren, J.F. (2007). Experimental auctions: Methods and applications in economic and marketing research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26. Marette, S., & Lusk, J.L. (2014). A revealed-stated preference approach to the ex ante valuation of information (Working paper). Stillwater: Oklahoma State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
27. Melton, B.E., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., & Fox, J.A. (1996). Consumer preferences for fresh food items with multiple quality attributes: Evidence from an experimental auction of pork chops. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78(4), 916-923.
28. Menkhaus, D.J., Borden, G.W., Whipple, G.D., Hoffman, E., & Field, R.A. (1992). An empirical application of laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 17(1), 44-55.
29. Morewedge, C.K., Shu, L.L., Gilbert, D.T., & Wilson, T.D. (2009). Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 947-951.
30. Noussair, C., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2002). Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Economics Letters, 75(1), 47-53.
31. Noussair, C., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2004). Do consumers really refuse to buy genetically modified food? The Economic Journal, 114(492), 102-120.
32. Rousu, M., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., & Tegene, A. (2004). Are United States consumers tolerant of genetically modified foods? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 26(1), 19-31.
33. Rousu, M., 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(3), 409-432.
34. Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J., & Kliebenstein, J.B. (1994). Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. The American Economic Review, 84(1), 255-270.
35. Smith, V.L. (1962). An experimental study of competitive market behavior. The Journal of Political Economy, 70(2), 111-137.
36. Smith, V.L. (1964). Effect of market organization on competitive equilibrium. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 78(2), 182-201.
37. Thurstone, L.L. (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26(3), 249.
38. US Food and Drug Administration. (1992). Statement of policy: Foods derived from new plant varieties; Notice. Federal Register, 57, 22984-23005.