Political returns to ad hoc farm payments?

This paper investigates the extent to which ad hoc farm payments made under the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) and the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) affected voting patterns in the 2020 Presidential Election. MFP and CFAP payments were historically unique not only in terms of their magnitude, but also because they were authorized almost entirely by the incumbent Administration of President Donald Trump without direct Congressional authorization or appropriation. Our results indicate that these payments did influence county‐level voting outcomes. The observed response is driven almost exclusively by increased turnout among Trump supporters—we do not observe evidence that ad hoc payments generated widespread "vote switching” away from the Democratic or third‐party candidates and toward Trump. We find the MFP and CFAP programs generated 677,512 votes for Republican candidate Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election with an estimated cost‐per‐vote‐gained of $66,124. These votes induced by ad hoc farm payments were insufficient to change electoral college outcomes in any U.S. state.

Disentangling Short-Run COVID-19 Price Impact Pathways in the US Corn Market

Despite this focus on pandemic-related supply chain disruptions, fewer empirical studies have sought to isolate short-term price impacts in food and nonfood agricultural commodity markets.1 Understanding the drivers of short-term commodity price impacts is critical to understanding future susceptibility to major market shocks and to informing policies related to shock mitigation. Declines in ethanol production reached an estimated 2 billion gallons lost from March to November 2020, leading to a corresponding decline of 700 million bushels of corn usage and a loss of billions of dollars of ethanol producer surplus (Renewable Fuels Association, 2020b;Schmitz, Moss, and Schmitz, 2020). Increases in corn-based ethanol production that started in 2005 have linked agricultural commodity prices and energy markets as US ethanol production increased rapidly from 3.9 billion gallons in 2005 to 13.3 billion by 2010 and 15.8 billion by 2019 (Chakravorty, Hubert, and Nøstbakken, 2009;Wright, 2011;Roberts and Schlenker, 2013;Asgari, Saghaian, and Reed, 2020;US Department of Agriculture, 2021). Given that over 90% of US ethanol is used in mixtures of E10 gasoline and the US market reached a 10% "blend wall" in 2016, any reduction in gasoline use will cause proportional decreases in ethanol use (US Energy Information Administrationa, 2020;US Department of Agriculture, 2021).

The effectiveness of financial incentives for COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review.

Financial incentives are a controversial strategy for increasing vaccination. In this systematic review, we evaluated: 1) the effects of incentives on COVID-19 vaccinations; 2) whether effects differed based on study outcome, study design, incentive type and timing, or sample sociodemographic characteristics; and 3) the cost of incentives per additional vaccine administered. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Econlit up to March 2022 for terms related to COVID, vaccines, and financial incentives, and identified 38 peer-reviewed, quantitative studies. Independent raters extracted study data and evaluated study quality. Studies examined the impact of financial incentives on COVID-19 vaccine uptake (k = 18), related psychological outcomes (e.g., vaccine intentions, k = 19), or both types of outcomes. For studies of vaccine uptake, none found that financial incentives had a negative effect on uptake, and most rigorous studies found that incentives had a positive effect on uptake. By contrast, studies of vaccine intentions were inconclusive. While three studies concluded that incentives may negatively impact vaccine intentions for some individuals, they had methodological limitations. Study outcomes (uptake versus intentions) and study design (experimental versus observational frameworks) appeared to influence results more than incentive type or timing. Additionally, income and political affiliation may moderate responses to incentives. Most studies evaluating cost per additional vaccine administered found that they ranged from $49-75. Overall, fears about financial incentives decreasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake are not supported by the evidence. Financial incentives likely increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. While these increases appear to be small, they may be meaningful across populations. Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022316086 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022316086).

Are vaccine lotteries worth the money?

This research evaluates the effects of the twelve statewide vaccine lottery schemes that were announced as of June 7, 2021 on state vaccination rates. We construct a dataset that matches information on the timing and location of these lotteries with daily, county-level data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on the cumulative number of people who have received at least one dose of an emergency-authorized Covid-19 vaccine. We find that 10 of the 12 statewide lotteries studied (i.e., all but Arkansas and California) generated a positive, statistically significant, and economically meaningful impact on vaccine uptake after thirty days. On average, the cost per marginal vaccination across these programs was approximately $55.

Are vaccine lotteries worth the money?

This research evaluates the effects of the twelve statewide vaccine lottery schemes that were announced as of June 7, 2021 on state vaccination rates. We construct a dataset that matches information on the timing and location of these lotteries with daily, county-level data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on the cumulative number of people who have received at least one dose of an emergency-authorized Covid-19 vaccine. We find that 10 of the 12 statewide lotteries studied (i.e., all but Arkansas and California) generated a positive, statistically significant, and economically meaningful impact on vaccine uptake after thirty days. On average, the cost per marginal vaccination across these programs was approximately $55.

Unscrambling U.S. egg supply chains amid COVID-19.

This article investigates how the shift from food-away-from-home and towards food-at-home at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic affected the U.S. egg industry. We find that the pandemic increased retail and farm-gate prices for table eggs by approximately 141% and 182%, respectively. In contrast, prices for breaking stock eggs-which are primarily used in foodservice and restaurants-fell by 67%. On April 3, 2020, the FDA responded by issuing temporary exemptions from certain food safety standards for breaking stock egg producers seeking to sell into the retail table egg market. We find that this regulatory change rapidly pushed retail, farm-gate, and breaking stock prices towards their long-run pre-pandemic equilibrium dynamics. The pandemic reduced premiums for credence attributes, including cage-free, vegetarian-fed, and organic eggs, by as much as 34%. These premiums did not fully recover following the return to more "normal" price dynamics, possibly signaling that willingness-to-pay for animal welfare and environmental sustainability have fallen as consumers seek to meet basic needs during the pandemic. Finally, in spite of widespread claims of price gouging, we do not find that the pandemic (or the subsequent FDA regulatory changes) had a meaningful impact on the marketing margin for table eggs sold at grocery stores.

The Razor's Edge of “Essential” Labor in Food and Agriculture

In the midst of a pandemic, falling on one side or the other of the cruel “razor's edge” of the “essential” and “nonessential” labor distinction can mean the difference between infection versus safety and, on the other hand, continued earnings versus unemployment. This article synthesizes relevant research from a variety of disciplines to explore the implications of the essentiality distinction as a “second-best” policy instrument. We identify ways to improve the equity and efficiency of the distinction as a second-best policy tool and consider potential ways to look beyond essentialness for future economic policy responses to pandemics.

Indemnifying precaution: economic insights for regulation of a highly infectious disease.

Economic insights are powerful for understanding the challenge of managing a highly infectious disease, such as COVID-19, through behavioral precautions including social distancing. One problem is a form of moral hazard, which arises when some individuals face less personal risk of harm or bear greater personal costs of taking precautions. Without legal intervention, some individuals will see socially risky behaviors as personally less costly than socially beneficial behaviors, a balance that makes those beneficial behaviors unsustainable. For insights, we review health insurance moral hazard, agricultural infectious disease policy, and deterrence theory, but find that classic enforcement strategies of punishing noncompliant people are stymied. One mechanism is for policymakers to indemnify individuals for losses associated with taking those socially desirable behaviors to reduce the spread. We develop a coherent approach for doing so, based on conditional cash payments and precommitments by citizens, which may also be reinforced by social norms.