Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy ; 45(1 p.555-578):555-578, 2023.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2315688

ABSTRACT

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.

2.
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics ; 48(2):361-375,S1-S3, 2023.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2314723

ABSTRACT

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).

3.
J Law Biosci ; 8(2): lsab027, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1404509

ABSTRACT

This research investigates the extent to which financial incentives (conditional cash transfers) would induce Americans to opt for vaccination against coronavirus disease of 2019. We performed a randomized survey experiment with a representative sample of 1000 American adults in December 2020. Respondents were asked whether they would opt for vaccination under one of three incentive conditions ($1000, $1500, or $2000 financial incentive) or a no-incentive condition. We find that-without coupled financial incentives-only 58 per cent of survey respondents would elect for vaccination. A coupled financial incentive yields an 8-percentage-point increase in vaccine uptake relative to this baseline. The size of the cash transfer does not dramatically affect uptake rates. However, incentive responses differ dramatically by demographic group. Republicans were less responsive to financial incentives than the general population. For Black and Latino Americans especially, very large financial incentives may be counter-productive.

4.
Food Policy ; 101: 102046, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135328

ABSTRACT

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.

5.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics ; n/a(n/a), 2020.
Article in English | MDPI | ID: covidwho-991144

ABSTRACT

Though both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration claim that there is no evidence that handling and consuming food causes COVID-19, many consumers may not be convinced. To assess concerns about potential COVID-19 transmission from food, we surveyed more than 3,000 consumers in May, June, and July of 2020 using a nationally representative panel. Despite evidence to the contrary, consumers express multiple concerns about their food and how and where it is served and transmission of the virus. Between concerns about transmission of COVID-19 while shopping for food versus consuming food, more consumers were concerned about exposure while shopping;however, the number of consumers concerned about transmission from consuming food steadily increased over the months of data collection. We also found that Black respondents were more concerned about COVID-19 transmission from certain staple foods, suggesting that COVID-19 could intensify standing racial inequities related to nutrition and health. Overall, these findings suggest that we may be observing the early stages of evolving food stigmas that could persist in the future and reshape how U.S. consumers shop for food and the foods they consume.

6.
Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy ; 2020.
Article | ELSEVIER | ID: covidwho-754925

ABSTRACT

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.

7.
Environ Resour Econ (Dordr) ; 76(4): 1139-1148, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-639108

ABSTRACT

In this article, we present data from the monthly Pandemic Food and Stigma Survey (PFSS), a nationwide representative sample of adults in the United States designed to identify how the pandemic is affecting concerns about food and the environment. Two surveys were conducted in May and June 2020. Our analysis suggests that the public's concern about contracting COVID-19 has been high; however, infection with COVID-19 was not the only concern. A majority of respondents remained strongly concerned about environmental issues, such as climate change, while responses to sudden relaxations of environmental and food safety policies varied. We analyze the PFSS data to identify factors associated with concerns about pandemic and environmental regulatory changes. In general, we find that people whose food security has been threatened by COVID-19 remain concerned about relaxation of environmental regulations, and those most inclined to take steps to reduce spread of the virus, such as wearing masks and social distancing, are more concerned about relaxed regulations than those less willing to take mitigating actions.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL