Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:13:01.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting State-Wide Votes on Ballot Initiatives to Ban Battery Cages and Gestation Crates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Katie Smithson ,
Max Corbin ,
Jayson L. Lusk  and
F. Bailey Norwood
Katie Smithson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics at, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Max Corbin
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics at, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Jayson L. Lusk
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics at, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
F. Bailey Norwood
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics at, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Get access

Abstract

After California voters decided in a state initiative to ban gestation crates and battery cages, some are asking whether other states will host similar initiatives and if they will pass. This study addresses this question by using voting data in California to predict how voters in other states would respond to a similar initiative. Results suggest that a number of states allow such initiatives and possess a demographic profile favorable to the initiative's passage. However, because these states host only a small portion of the livestock population, the impact of such initiatives on the well-being of farm animals is questionable.

Keywords

animal welfarebattery cagedemographicsgestation cratestate initiativeH7K2Q1
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 107 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albisu, L.M., Gracia, A., and Sanjuan, A.I.. “Demographics and Food Consumption: Empirical Evidence.” The Oxford Handbook of: The Economics of Food Consumption and Policy. Lusk, J.L., Roosen, J., and Shogren, J.F., eds. New York, NY: Oxford Publishing, 2011.Google Scholar
Amadae, S.M., and Mesquita, B.B. de. “The Rochester School: The Origins of Positive Political Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 2(1999):269–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, M.B.M., Spruijt, B.M., Metz, J.H.M., and Schouten, W.G.P.. “Decision Support System for Overall Welfare Assessment in Pregnant Sows A: Model Structure and Weighting Procedure.” Journal of Animal Science 80(2002a): 1819–1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, M.B.M., Spruijt, B.M., Metz, J.H.M., and Schouten, W.G.P.. “Decision Support System for Overall Welfare Assessment in Pregnant Sows B: Validation by Expert Opinion.” Journal of Animal Science 80(2002b): 1819–1834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
California Secretary of State. 2008. Internet site: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/sov_complete.pdf (Accessed April 13, 2011).Google Scholar
De Mol, R.M., Schouten, W.G.P., Evers, E., Drost, H., Houwers, H.W.J., and Smits, A.C.. “A Computer Model for Welfare Assessment of Poultry Production Systems for Laying Hens.” Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 54(2006): 157–168.Google Scholar
Demby, G. “Mitt Romney Is Capturing Zero Percent of the Black Vote, According to New Poll.” The Hufflngton Post. August 21, 2012. Internet site: www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/ 08/21/mitt-romney-black-vote_n_1820329.html (Accessed October 10, 2012).Google Scholar
Environmental Defense Fund. 2000. Environmentalists Applaud Action Requiring Smith-field Foods to Eliminate NC Hog Lagoons.> Internet site: www.edf.org/news/environmentalists-applaud-action-requiring-smithfield-foods-eliminate-nc-hog-lagoons (Accessed August 30, 2013).+Internet+site:+www.edf.org/news/environmentalists-applaud-action-requiring-smithfield-foods-eliminate-nc-hog-lagoons+(Accessed+August+30,+2013).>Google Scholar
Fatka, J. “Senate Hearing Tackles Egg Bill.” Feedstuffs. Page 1. July 30, 2012.Google Scholar
Feinstein, D. Feinstein Bill Sets National Standards for Egg Industry. Internet site: www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?II3=fdf4f2eb-5ff2-467a-a4c8-b9elfd63880e (Accessed June 28, 2013).Google Scholar
Field Research Corporation—California Opinion Index. 2009. Internet site: http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-09-Jan-Mail-Ballot-Voting-Rise.pdf (Accessed September 4, 2013).Google Scholar
Haab, T.C., and McConnell, K.E.. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Initiative & Initiative Institute at the University of Southern California. Internet site: www.iandrinstitute.org (Accessed August 7, 2011).Google Scholar
Katz, E., and Lazarsfeld, P.F.. Personal Influence. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006.Google Scholar
Keller, E., and Berry, J.. The Influentials. New York, NY: The Free Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Kilian, E. “Pork Industry Culture to Change.” Feedstuffs 80,21 (2008):8.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Robb, A. Leslie. “On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 68(1986):715–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusk, J.L. “The Effect of Proposition 2 on the Demand for Eggs in California.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization 8(2010):Article 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddala, G.S. Introduction to Econometrics. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 2001.Google Scholar
Miller, W.E., and Shanks, J. Merrill. The New American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Mueller, D.C. Public Choice III. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007 Census of Agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture. Internet site: http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Accessed August 4, 2011).Google Scholar
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2011. Chicken and Eggs 2010 Summary. United States Department of Agriculture. Internet site: http://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/usda/current/ChickEgg/ChickEgg-02-25-2011.txt (Accessed August 4, 2011).Google Scholar
Norwood, F.B., and Lusk, J.L.. Compassion, by the Pound. Oxford, UK: Oxford Publishing, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prickett, R.“Consumer Preferences for Farm Animal Welfare: Results from a Telephone Survey of U.S. Households.” Master's thesis. Oklahoma State University, 2007.Google Scholar
Prickett, R., Norwood, F.B., and Lusk, J.L.. “Consumer Preferences for Farm Animal Welfare: Results from a Telephone Survey of U.S. Households.” Animal Welfare (South Mimms, England) 19(2010):335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, T, Allender, W., and Fang, D.. “Media Advertising and Ballot Initiatives: The Case of Animal Welfare Regulation.” Contemporary Economic Policy 31 (2011): 145–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.2011.00292.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawa, T. “Information Criteria for Discrimination among Alternative Regression Models.” Econometrica 46(1978):1273–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seibert, L., and Norwood, F. Bailey. “Production Costs and Animal Welfare for Four Stylized Hog Production Systems.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 14(2011): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R. “Hen Housing Bill Expected Soon.” Feedstuffs February 4, 2013a, p. 19.Google Scholar
Smith, R “Sow Barn Conversion ‘Exciting.’”Feedstuffs June 3, 2013b, p. 1.Google Scholar
Smith, V, Houtven, K.G. Van, and Pattanayak, S.K.. “Benefit Transfer via Preference Calibration: ‘Prudential Algebra’ for Policy.” Land Economics 78(2002): 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, D., Rosen-Molina, T., Matthews, W., Mench, J., and Richter, K.. “Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on Egg-laying Hen Housing in California.” Paper presented at University of California Agricultural Issues Center, July 2008.Google Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., and Wolf, C.A.. “Drivers of Resident Support for Animal Care Oriented Ballot Initiatives.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 43(2010):419–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Videras, J. “Religion and Animal Welfare: Evidence from Voting Data.” Journal of Socio-Economics 35(2006):652–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H. “A Heteroscedastic-consistent Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Hetero-scedasticity.” Econometrica 48(1978):817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyant, S. “Livestock Groups Equate HSUS/UEP Bill to Government Takeover of Farms.” AgriPulse.com. Internet site: www.agri-pulse.com/HSUS_UEP_legislation_012312.asp (Accessed August 30, 2013).Google Scholar