I Will Give You My Vote but Not My Money: Preferences for Public versus Private Action in Addressing Social Issues

Abstract

This study explores the extent to which individuals will support public action but, in its absence, will not commit their own voluntary efforts. An internet survey was administered to over 3,500 individuals with hypothetical scenarios in which they could donate their own money toward a cause and/or support government action. When asked to choose between public or private action, most chose a combination of the two, suggesting that public and private partnerships are the preferred vehicle for solutions to social problems. Close to 20% indicated they would vote for laws to confront an issue but not contribute their own private donations.

Heterogeneous consumers and differentiated food markets: Implications for quality signaling in food supply chains

“…An excellent illustration of a similar conundrum is provided by Norwood, Tonsor, and Lusk (2019) who analyze a so-called "vote-buy" gap, wherein individuals vote (e.g., in a referendum) to ban an agricultural practice, such as voting to ban cage egg production, yet sales of cagefree eggs remain low relative to cage egg purchases. The sampling of consumer research literature touched upon in this paper highlights the fact that those with strong preferences for specific credence attributes tend to be more highly motivated to engage in debates about the food sector, are often more interested in certifications and assurances, and are more likely to be in favor of regulatory intervention to assure the presence (or absence) of a particular attribute (be it a production practice or a novel technology).…”

“…A variety of factors explain this apparent divergence in preferences for public versus private action, from differences in individual value systems, to views on the role of government versus private action, to trust (or lack of trust) in private-sector quality assurance, or a belief that regulatory action may be more effective (for an analysis, see Norwood et al, 2019). Ensuring that policy decisions are informed by a full consideration of the welfare and distributional impacts on consumer and producer surplus, any collective reputation spillover effects, and an honest assessment of the relative costs and benefits of policy interventions can help navigate public discourse in the presence of strong preferences.…”

“…The sampling of consumer research literature touched upon in this paper highlights the fact that those with strong preferences for specific credence attributes tend to be more highly motivated to engage in debates about the food sector, are often more interested in certifications and assurances, and are more likely to be in favor of regulatory intervention to assure the presence (or absence) of a particular attribute (be it a production practice or a novel technology). An excellent illustration of a similar conundrum is provided by Norwood, Tonsor, and Lusk (2019) who analyze a so-called "vote-buy" gap, wherein individuals vote (e.g., in a referendum) to ban an agricultural practice, such as voting to ban cage egg production, yet sales of cagefree eggs remain low relative to cage egg purchases. Individuals voting to ban a product that they typically purchase constitutes a vote-buy gap.…”

What agricultural and food policies do U.S. consumers prefer? A best–worst scaling approach

“…Furthermore, failure of ballot initiatives to implement soda taxes occurred in numerous cities such as Chicago, Santa Fe, and San Francisco. As these examples illustrate, it is insufficient, and often inaccurate, to use estimates of consumers' preferences from product choice to infer preferences for policies (Brooks & Lusk, 2012;Carlsson, Frykblom, & Lagerkvist, 2007;Norwood, Tonsor, & Lusk, 2018;Paul, Lusk, Norwood, & Tonsor, 2019).…”

Consumer preferences for cage‐free eggs and impacts of retailer pledges

“…As agricultural producers and agribusinesses seek to respond to consumer and advocacy organization demands for alternative production practices, there is a need to better understand what food consumers know and understand and whether their willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) is sufficient to offset the added costs (Ortega & Wolf, ). When consumers and advocacy organizations support government or industry policies that increase prices beyond a point that can be reflected in higher retail sales, producers, and retailers face an unfunded mandate (Norwood, Tonsor, & Lusk, ; Sumner, ). This study focuses on the potential impacts of increasing transition to cage‐free production practices in the retail market for shell eggs.…”