Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?
- 336 Downloads
Many Europeans are concerned about the living conditions of farm animals because they view animals as beings that possess interests of their own. Against this background the introduction of an animal welfare label is being intensively discussed in Europe. In choosing a market-based instrument to take these concerns into account, normative judgments are made about the formation of preferences, the value system that is implicitly assumed, and the distribution of property rights. From the perspective of classical institutional economics it can be shown that the introduction of a label as an institutional change does not redefine institutions in a way that allows them to consider the interests of animals for their own sake. Rather, the label only redefines the property rights that humans have over animals. The market segregation into privileged and normal animals conflicts with the idea of equality between sentient animals. Within the group of humans only the interests of those who act on markets count. The commodification of their moral concerns assumes that people always decide based on their own interests, which can be traded off. The lexicographical ordering of preferences, which occurs when humans view animals as entities with rights, is not compatible with the normative assumptions of markets. Furthermore, interpreting animal suffering as market failure that can be corrected by labeling impedes a reasoned dialog within the society about the values and beliefs that serve as a basis for preference formation. Thus, an animal welfare label cannot replace a fundamental societal debate about legal standards on animal well-being.
KeywordsAnimal ethics Commodification of moral concerns Preference formation Deliberative decision making
The author would like to thank an anonymous reviewer as well as Daniel W. Bromley for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
- Agrar-Europe. (2015). Tierschutzbund sieht reichlich Handlungsbedarf. No. 4/15. In: Länderberichte 16.Google Scholar
- Agrarheute. (2013). Neues Tierschutzlabel: Viel Kritik und wenig Zustimmung. http://www.agrarheute.com/reaktionen-tierschutzlabel.
- Aizerman, M. A., & Alerskerov, F. T. (1995). Theory of choice. Amsterdam: Northern Holland.Google Scholar
- Anderson, E. (1993). Values in ethics and economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Arrow, K. J. (1951). The social choice and the individual value. New York: Wisley.Google Scholar
- Becker, G. (1976). The economics approach to human behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous preferences: The cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 75–111.Google Scholar
- Bromley, D. W. (2006). Sufficient reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Burgess, D., Hutchinson, G., McCallion, I., & Scarpa, R. (2003). Investigating choice rationality in stated preference methods for enhanced animal welfare. CSERGE Working Paper ECM 03-02. Norwich: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
- De Lauwere, C., & Luttik, J. (2004). Wageningen UR Projectteam Houden van Hennen. Laying hen husbandry: Towards a happy life, proud farmers and satisfied society. Wageningen: Wageningen UR.Google Scholar
- Eurobarometer. (2007a). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals: Wave 2. In Special Eurobaromenter Report 229(2). Brussels: Eurobaromenter.Google Scholar
- Eurobarometer. (2007b). Attitude of EU Citizens towards animal welfare. In Special Eurobarometer Report 270. Brussels: Eurobarometer.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (1998). Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Brussels.Google Scholar
- Evans, A., & Miele, M. (2007) (Eds). Consumers’ views about farm animal welfare, part I: National reports based on focus group research. In Welfare Quality ® Reports no. 4. Cardiff: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
- Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. (1988). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Vol. 1). Surkamp: Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
- Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Jakobs, M. (1997). Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions. In J. Foster (Ed.), Valuing nature: Economics, ethics and environment (pp. 211–231). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kjaernes, U., Roe U., & Bock B. (2007). Societal concerns on farm animal welfare. In: I. Veissier, B. Forkman, & B. Jones (Eds.), Assuring animal welfare: From societal concerns to implementation, Proceedings of the second welfare quality stakeholder conference (pp. 13–18), 3–4 May 2007, Berlin.Google Scholar
- O’Neill, J. (2007). Markets, deliberation and environment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Pirscher, F. (2013). Animal welfare labelling: Is the market the right governance structure to meet people’s moral concerns? In H. Röcklinsberg & P. Sandin (Eds.), The ethics of consumption: The citizen, the market and the law (pp. 120–125). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Raz, J. (1997). Incommensurability and agency. In R. Chang (Ed.), Incommensurablity, incomparability and practical reason (pp. 110–128). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
- Samuelson, P. A. (1953). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Schulze, B., Lemke, P., & Spiller, A. (2008). Glückschwein oder arme Sau? Die Einstellung der Verbraucher zur modernen Nutztierhaltung. In A. Spiller & B. Schulze (Eds.), Zukunftsperspektiven der Fleischwirtschaft: Verbraucher, Märkte, Geschäftsbeziehungen. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.Google Scholar
- Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: New York Review; Distributed by Random House.Google Scholar
- Vatn, A. (2000). The environment as a commodity. Environmental Values 9(4), 493–509. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30301777.
- Veissier, I., Jensen, K. K., Botreu, R., & Sandøe, P. (2011). Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare, 20, 89–101.Google Scholar
- Wolf, U. (1990). Das Tier in der Moral. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar