scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
JournalISSN: 2040-5790

Applied economic perspectives and policy 

Oxford University Press
About: Applied economic perspectives and policy is an academic journal published by Oxford University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Business & Agriculture. It has an ISSN identifier of 2040-5790. Over the lifetime, 144 publications have been published receiving 323 citations. The journal is also known as: AEPP.

Papers published on a yearly basis

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors analyzed market expenditure data from 2017 to 2020 to evaluate the demand for PBMA in relation to meats and found that PBMA is a complement for beef and pork while a substitute for chicken, turkey, and fish.
Abstract: With the unique mimicry of the sensory experiences of meats, the plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA) appeal to consumers outside the traditional vegetarian demographics. This study analyzes market expenditure data from 2017 to 2020 to evaluate the demand for PBMA in relation to meats. Results show that PBMA is a complement for beef and pork while a substitute for chicken, turkey, and fish. Although the current market demand for PBMA is still incomparable with meats, the growth of PBMA sales is significant. This study sheds light on marketing strategies and policies towards the future of PBMA and the fresh meat sector.

28 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper conducted a combined sensory and discrete choice experiment study with a 100% beef burger, a plant-based burger using pea protein and a blended burger with 70% beef and 30% mushroom involving US consumers.
Abstract: We conducted a combined sensory and discrete choice experiment study with a 100% beef burger, a plant-based burger using pea protein, a plant-based burger using animal-like protein, and a blended burger with 70% beef and 30% mushroom involving US consumers. Respondents were either assigned to a blind or an informed tasting condition with information about the ingredients before tasting the burgers. Results reveal that (i) beef burgers are preferred over alternatives, (ii) consumers favor blended burgers over alternatives in the blind condition but demand decreases in the informed condition; (iii) consumers prefer the plant-based burger with animal-like protein over the one with pea protein. consumer preferences and demand for plant-based burgers, including burgers using animal-like protein derived from yeast and plant-based meat using pea proteins. Results from this study indicated that farm-raised beef was the most preferred, followed by plant-based meat using pea proteins, and finally, plant-based meat using animal-like protein from yeast (Van Loo et al., 2020). In the studies by both Tonsor et al. (2021) and Van Loo et al. (2020) participants did not taste the products and made their choices based on various listed prices associated with each meat alternative. Following for each sensory condition we evaluated our design ex post and computed the S statistic, which is a statistical measure that provides the theoretical minimum sample size necessary to obtain asymptotically significant parameter estimates. The S estimates indicate that that less than 10 respondents would have been needed to identify the effects associated with the price and alternative-specific constants used in the blind and informed conditions. Our sample size is quite a bit larger than the one suggested by the S estimates, indicating that our results are powerful enough to derive conclusions.

22 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors found that a pair-wise choice between beef and a plant-based alternative was not significantly affected by the presence of nutrition facts panels or ingredient lists, and they found small cross-price elasticities between plant based patties and ground beef.
Abstract: This article reports results from four studies determining the US market potential for plant-based meat alternatives in different contexts and settings. The first study shows that a pair-wise choice between beef and a plant-based alternative was not significantly affected by the presence of nutrition facts panels or ingredient lists. A second study, framed as a food service meal choice, reveals that the introduction of a plant-based burger has roughly the same effect on beef sales as does the presence of a chicken wrap. The final two studies estimate own- and cross-price elasticities of retail demand. We find small cross-price elasticities between plant-based patties and ground beef. Each of the aforementioned results varies for regular meat consumers as compared to consumers who self-identify with an alternative diet such as flexitarian, vegetarian, or vegan. Combined, this study increases understanding of the impact presented by plant-based offerings in the US protein market.

18 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors draw on economic assessments by other authors and discuss their wider implications by considering only partially quantified benefits and costs, such as implications for greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, or the landscape.
Abstract: The EU Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy includes a number of policy objectives that have implications for agricultural production in the EU and beyond. This contribution discusses the possible implications from an economic perspective. We draw on economic assessments by other authors and discuss their wider implications by considering only partially quantified benefits and costs. Overall, the assessments indicate a decline in EU agricultural production in quantitative terms. The F2F strategy negatively affects aggregate consumer surplus and—depending on the assumption made—a net increase or decrease in producer surplus, thereby inducing an overall net welfare loss. Partially quantified benefits and costs include the environmental benefits and costs linked to the F2F strategy, such as implications for greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, or the landscape. Therefore, by launching the strategy, policy makers have implicitly concluded that the additional net benefits outweigh the losses in consumer surplus. The economic studies combined with studies on the impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity and the emission of greenhouse gases do not support this claim without further technological and institutional changes, such as supporting the application of modern biotechnology by reducing regulatory hurdles. Also, whether most consumers will share this view remains to be seen. EU policy makers have it in their hands to implement the necessary institutional changes.

14 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors argue that attaining policy integration in the case of the F2F is particularly challenging and calls for an innovative approach to policymaking, and departs from the assumption that the challenge of putting the Farm-to-Fork Strategy (F2F) into action stems from the broader challenge of attaining cross-sectoral policy integration.
Abstract: This article departs from the assumption that the challenge of putting the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) into action stems from the broader challenge of attaining cross-sectoral policy integration. Policy integration has been part of the EU's policy approach for a long time and has predominantly been achieved in the form of environmental policy integration (EPI). However, the scope of the F2F extends beyond EPI, as it includes the integration of climate-related concerns into sectoral policies, for instance. Consequently, we contend that attaining policy integration in the case of the F2F is particularly challenging and calls for an innovative approach to policymaking.

10 citations

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
202351
2022113