MASTER IN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS IN PORTICISUMMER TERM* 2010
The Centro di Portici is offering a one-year graduate program (three terms)
leading to a Master in Agricultural Economics. The main features of this
program may be seen on the Centro web site.
The program begins on March 1st 2010, with classes in Economics, Statistics and
Econometrics. A second term will start on May 24th 2010 and will last until the end
of July. This Summer Term will be held completely in English. English-speaking
graduate students from other Institutions may be admitted to the whole of this
term, or only to selected classes. Foreign students are particularly welcome.
The complete list of classes and professors and the timetable of lessons follows.
Some two-hour seminars on special topics may be announced during the term.
CLASSES
Industrial OrganizationLecturer: Christian Rojas - University of Massachusetts, Amherst
May 24- June 11; 32 hours (plus practices)
Registration fee € 500
The European Approach to Food Safety and Quality:Lecturers: T. Del Giudice; F. Verneau - Centro di Portici and University of Naples
July 12 - July 22; 16 hours (plus practices)
Registration fee € 250
Applied MicroeconometricsLecturer: Gary Thompson - University of Arizona, Tucson
June 14 - July 8; 32 hours (plus practices)
Registration fee € 500
Non market valuationLecturer: Gianni Cicia, Centro di Portici and University of Naples
June 21 - July 23; 32 hours (plus practices)
Registration fee € 500
Common Agricultural PolicyLecturer: Antonio Cioffi, Centro di Portici and University of Naples
June 14 - July 02; 16 hours (plus practices)
Registration fee € 250
* All the activities involved in the Summer Term are completely funded by the Ministero delle
Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, M.I.R.T.A. Project, (D.M. n. 19562 del 23/12/2008).
SUMMER SERM 2010: TIME TABLE
Students admitted to the Summer Term are entitled to freely attend the Meeting
on “Sustainability in the Food Sector” that the European Association of
Agricultural Economics will hold in Capri from June 30th to July 2nd , 2010.
Registration fees for the whole of the Summer Term are €1,000, to be paid
before May 26th, 2010.
Registration fees for each separate course are also quoted above. For two or
more classes total registration fees are reduced by 20%
A few scholarships are available for foreign graduate students from the
University of Arizona, Tuscon and Massachusetts, Amherst, owing to special
exchange programs existing with the Centro. All scholarships carry tuition
waivers. In some cases tuition waivers may be available to other graduate
students from European Universities even without a scholarship.
For details see: www.centroportici.unina.it
Applications should be sent to the following address: Centro per la Formazione
in Economia e Politica dello Sviluppo Rurale – Via Università, 96 – 80055
Portici (NA) - .ITALY.
Applications may also be sent by fax to +39817755117, or by E-mail to
www.centroportici.unina.it
The deadline for applications is May 3rd, 2010. Applicants should submit their
curricula and a recommendation letter from the Chair of their department. They
should also send their postal and E-mail addresses. They will be notified of the
result of their application by e-mail by May 10th, 2010.
2
24 May 31 May 07 Jun 14 Jun 21 Jun 28 Jun 05 Jul 12 Jul 19 Jul
Industrial
Organization
Applied
Microeconometrics
Common Agricultural
Policy
Non market valuation
European approach to
food safety and quality
APPLIED MICROECONOMETRICS
INSTRUCTOR. Gary D. Thompson
University of Arizona
E-mail: [email protected]
PURPOSE. Microeconometrics is a burgeoning sub-discipline of econometrics
with a plethora of applications in academia as well as the public and private
sectors. This course is designed to expose students to a variety of
microeconometric models encountered in applications in academia, business,
and government policy analysis.
OBJECTIVES. The objectives of the course are to:
1. Provide students with the knowledge to identify appropriate
microeconometric approaches for new economic problems encountered
(e.g. theses, dissertations, on-the-job problems).
2. Provide students sufficient practice with computer software applications to
gain the confidence and ability to clean data, estimate models, test
hypotheses, and make inferences.
3. Provide students opportunities to interpret results of inference and
prediction, and present their interpretations in writing and verbally in a
compelling fashion.
Put succinctly, upon completion of the course, students should be able to take
sample data, assess its strengths and weaknesses, estimate appropriate models,
generate useful predictions and inferences, and communicate the results
effectively in writing and verbally.
METHODS. The course will rely on lectures and computer labs conducted in
English. Because English is not the students’ native language, careful attention
will be paid to explaining concepts verbally, mathematically, and with graphs.
Key words will be translated into Italian to ensure students do not misunderstand
them.
3
Lectures will follow the topics listed in the outline at the end of the syllabus.
Readings from various books will be used. Most readings will be made
available in pdf form so that students can have ready access. Readings will
consist of selected pages from the following books as well as from journal
articles and working papers.
Cameron, A. Colin and Pravin K. Trivedi. Microeconometrics: Methodsand Applications, 1st edition, Cambridge, 2005.
Greene, William H. Econometric Analysis.
6th Edition, Prentice Hall. 2008.
Johnston, Jack and John DiNardo. Econometric Methods,
4th Edition. The McGraw-Hill. 1997.
Kennedy ,Peter. A Guide to Econometrics.
5th Edition, Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
MacKinnon, James G.and Russell Davidson. Econometric Theory andMethods, 1st edition, Oxford University Press, 2003.
The data sets used in Cameron and Trivedi, Greene, and MacKinnon and
Davidson are available online, thereby facilitating estimation with cleaned data
sets in computer lab sessions. If possible, raw data sets will also be employed
to provide students the opportunity to examine and clean raw data.
Many software packages for econometrics are available. This course will use
software available at Portici. Computer labs will be conducted either with
desktop computers or with students’ laptop computers, or both.
GRADING. Students will be awarded final marks based on problem sets, both
written and computer, class participation, and a final examination.
The weighting scheme for all graded assignments and the final examination is
the following:
Problem Sets 50%
Class Project 25%
Final Exam 25%
Total 100%
4
Class participation is essential for students to remain engaged in learning.
CONTACT HOURS. The number of lecture hours and computer lab hours given
in instruction will be set to accord with norms in use at Portici. The depth and
breadth of topics cover in the following outline will be adjusted according to the
time limits available for the course.
OUTLINE OF TOPICS IN APPLIED MICROECONOMETRICS
I. Data Generating Processes (DGP)
A. Understanding DGP is Paramount
1. Primary/Secondary Data Questions
2. Measurement Error
3. Missing Observations: Random vs. Non-Random
B. Types of Samples
1. Time Series
2. Cross Section
3. Pooled Time Series-Cross Section
4. Panel
5. Hybrids
C. Data Cleaning
1. Identifying Outliers
2. Assessing Collinearity
3. Dealing with Missing Observations
II. Review Properties of Estimators
A. Small Sample-repeated samples from same data generating process
1. Unbiasedness
2. Efficiency
3. Monte Carlo Examples
B. Large Sample-as sample size increases
1. Consistency
2. Asymptotic Efficiency
3. Asymptotic Normality
4. Monte Carlo Examples
III. Review Linear Model
A. Least-Squares Estimation
B. Assumptions Underlying Linear Model
5
C. Consequence of Violations of Assumptions
D. Detecting Violations of Assumptions
E. Remedying Violations
IV. Nonlinear Single-Equation Model
A. Alternative Estimators
1. Nonlinear Least Squares
2. Maximum Likelihood
3. Method of Moments
B. Marginal Effects and Measures of Precision
1. Continuous vs. non-continuous explanatory variables
C. Predicted Values and Measures of Precision
V. Applications of the Nonlinear Single-Equation Model
A. Types of Dependent Variables
1. Binary
2. Multinomial
3. Ordinal
4. Count
5. Censored/Truncated
6. Duration/Hazard
VI. Panel Data
A. Continuous Dependent Variable
1. Fixed Effects
2. Random Effects
3. Dynamic Specifications
B. Binary Dependent Variable
VII. Treatment Effects
A. Selectivity Bias
B. Matching and Propensity Scores
C. Extensions: Instrumental Variable Methods
VIII. Nonparametric and Semiparametric Estimation
A. Motivation
B. Kernel Density Estimation
C. Kernel Regression
D. Semiparametric Regression
6
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
INSTRUCTOR: Christian Rojas
University of Massachusetts
E-mail: [email protected]
Summary and Objectives
This course is an introductory, graduate-level, course on industrial organization.
The focus of the course is on how firms can attain and sustain market power. The
main objective is to give students with a solid background by providing the
theoretical framework for the main themes in industrial organization. In
addition, the course will have an important empirical component: we will cover
several empirical papers and antitrust cases that will illustrate the importance of
market imperfections in public policy and private strategies. If time permits,
students will be introduced to datasets and will be asked to work on projects
reproducing results or coming up with new research ideas.
Grading:
Problem Sets 50%
Class Project 25%
Final Exam 25%
Reference Books:
There is no single reference book. I will rely on power point presentations and
the presented material will draw material from several sources:
Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, 3rd Edition, by Don E.
Waldman and Elizabeth J. Jensen [WJ]
The Antitrust Revolution: Economics, Competition, and Policy, 5th Edition,
by John E. Kwoka, Jr. and Lawrence J. White [KW]
Industrial Organization: Theory and Applications. MIT Press: Cambridge
and London. By Oz Shy [S]
Modern Industrial Organization, 4th Edition. Pearson-Addison Wesley:
Reading, MA. By Dennis Carlton and Jeffrey Perloff. [CP]
7
The Theory of Industrial Organization. MIT Press: Cambridge and London.
By Jean Tirole. [T]
Estimating Market Power and Strategies. Cambridge. By Jeffrey Perloff,
Larry Karp and Amos Golan. [PKG]
Introduction to Industrial Organization. MIT Press. By Luis Cabral. [C]
In addition, several papers will be used throughout the course. They are listed
as references under each topic - I will make these available in PDF.
Overview of Topics [estimated number of hours]
Total Hours: 28. [Estimated number of hours per topic]
1. Introduction to IO [1]
• What is IO
• Empirical v. Theoretical IO
• Brief History
• References: WJ (Ch. 1); S (Ch. 1)
2. Market Power [21]
• Approaches to Market power [4]
o SCP approach
o Structural approach
o Empirical examples
o References: PKG (Ch. 2 and 3); WJ (Ch. 6); CP (Ch. 8)
• Collusion and Dynamic games [4]
o Factors affecting collusion
o Review of folk theorem
o Collusion Imperfect information and imperfect monitoring
o Antitrust laws: Per se rule v. rule of reason
o Examples from US and Europe
o References: PKG (Ch. 5); WJ (Ch. 9 and 10); CP (Ch. 5);
Papers: Green
and Porter (1984); Rotemberg and Saloner (1986); Rojas
(2008b)
8
• Differentiated products [5]
o Horizontal differentiation o Vertical differentiation o
Approaches to estimation o Examples of market power
estimation
o References: PKG (Ch. 4); S (Ch. 7); CP (Ch. 7), WJ (Ch. 13);
Papers: Nevo (2001) Rojas, (2008a), Salvo(2008), Cohen and
Cotterill (2009)
• Mergers [3]
o Antitrust laws
o Market definition and the price effect of mergers
o Applications: Staples-Office Depot merger
o References: WJ (Ch. 4, 4.3); KW (cases 6 and 7); papers: Nevo
(2000), Singal (1994).
• Vertical Issues [5]
o Double marginalization o Exclusive dealing o RPM o Tying
o Exclusive territories o Antitrust laws
o References: CP (Ch. 12), WJ (Ch. 16); papers: Murris et al
(1992) Asker (2004).
Time Permitting:
3. Entry [3]
• Definition of entry
• Entry deterrence
• Limit pricing
• Predatory pricing
• Excess capacity
• Estimation
• References: WJ (Ch. 11 and 12), C (Ch. 14 and 15)
4. Advertising [3]
• References: CP (Ch. 13, 14); WJ (Ch. 13)
9
COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
INSTRUCTOR: Antonio Cioffi
Centro per la Formazione in Economia e Politica
dello Sviluppo Rurale - Università di Napoli Federico II
E-mail: [email protected]
The course is aimed at the understanding the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) and of its instruments that are approached according their evolution from
a price support policy to what may be now considered mainly an income support
policy and a rural development policy. Since the design of the CAP can be
thought as the resultant of the interaction between domestic stakeholders
(Member States, farmers, consumers, taxpayers) and external stakeholders
(partner countries) it is useful to take into account the role played by the different
stakeholders in the CAP evolution. As a matter of fact, the EU policy making
process has been in general slow and muddled, being marked by the search of
a difficult equilibrium between the interests of national governments and the
interests of the Union as a whole represented by the Commission. The results
has been a process of continuous adaptation to internal and external constraints
that played different roles in the time.
The starting of the CAP and its setting within trade agreements
The first part of the course will be concerned with the design of the Common
Market Organizations (CMO). At a first glance, this part could be considered
needless, since nowadays the CMOs have been practically dismantled.
However, in my opinion this treatment is useful for two reasons. The first is that
it put on the table some policy instruments that are still working. The second,
may be more relevant, is linked to the introduction of the political economy of
the CAP since it is concerned with the set of determinant factors that shaped its
design along the first fifty years of life many of them nowadays are still
important. More precisely, the treatment will be dedicated at the set and the
working of policy instruments inside the CMOs and to the reasons of their
choice. It will also analyze the choice of the support level.
Moreover this part is also a powerful tool to develop the understanding of policy
analysis.
Afterwards the course will deal with the effects of the CAP. More precisely:
• Distributive effects;
• Effects on the EU budget
• Effects on trade relationships.
10
Other ad hoc topics
Stabilization policies• CMO were based on stabilization instruments: a higher guaranteed
support give rice to higher expected and less variable prices.
• Policies for domestic stabilization transfers instability abroad.
• International stabilization programs in the ‘70ies.
Trade preferencesThis subject is very relevant within the EU external policy. Moreover it is also
relevant for its implication with the CAP. Nowadays there are two kind of trade
preferences: those granted to all LDC, that are modulated according the different
level of per capita income of benefiting countries and the preferences that are
granted within specific agreements. Among them are quite relevant Agreements
within Africa, Caraibi and Pacific countries and Mediterranean countries
(MPC). These agreements started with the beginning of the CAP and were
revised afterwards.
• ACP countries agreements: import quotas for bananas; support for sugar
producers.
• Agreements with MPCs.
The changes (reforms) of the CAP
The control of CAP budget: the production quota system• The quota system in the sugar and milk industry: economics of the quota
system
• EU budget stabilization
• Directive 159,160 and 161/75, 268/75: from a structural policy to a rural
development policies
The external constraint on the CAP• The measurement of the effects of agricultural policies
• The GATT Uruguay round
• Linkages between the 1992 MacSharry reform and the Uruguay round
GATT agreement
• CAP adjustment after the Uruguay round GATT agreement
• Toward a rural development policy
Toward decoupling• Agenda 2000: modulation and cross compliance;
• The MTR and the decoupling
11
• The building of a rural development policy
• The reform of mediterranean product CMO
• The 2008 CAP Health check
Open issues
Reading list
Anania, G. (1996). “L’Agricoltura nell’accordo conclusivo dell’Uruguay Round del
GATT”, in Anania G. e De Filippis F. (a cura di) L’accordo Gatt in agricoltura el’Unione Europea, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Babcock, B.A. (1990). “Acreage decisions under marketing quotas and yield
uncertainty”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, 958-965.
Burrell, A. (1989). “The microeconomics of quota transfer”. In Milk quotas in the
European Community (a cura di Burrell A.). CAB International, Bath.
Cioffi, A. (2001).“Il sostegno di mercato ai produttori comunitari di ortofrutticoli
freschi”, La Questione Agraria, 3.
Cioffi. A. e Dell’Aquila C. (2004). “The effects of trade policies for fresh fruits and
vegetables of the European Union”, Food Policy, 29, 169-185..
Commissione Europea. (1991). Evoluzione e futuro della politica agraria comune.
COM (91)258.
Commissione Europea. (1995, a). Gatt and European Agriculture. CAP Working
Notes, special issue.
Commissione Europea. (1995, b). Study on alternative strategies for the development
of relations in the field of agriculture between the EU and the associated countries
with a view to future accession of these countries” (Agricultural Strategy Paper),
CSE(95) 607, Bruxelles.
Commissione Europea (1997). Agenda 2000: for a stronger and wider Union,
DOC/97/6, Strasburgo, Luglio 1997.
Commissione Europea (1998), Situation et perspecitives. Vin, PAC 2000 -
Documents de travail, Juine 1998.
Commissione Europea (2002). Communication from the Commission to the Council
and the European Parliament. Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy.
Com (2002) 394. Bruxelles, 10 july 2002.
12
Corazza G., (1997). Uruguay round e politica agraria europea. Gangemi Editore,
Roma.
Dam, K. W. (1970). The GATT. Law and International Economic Organization, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
De Filippis, F. (1996). “Il negoziato agricolo dell’Uruguay round del Gatt”. In Anania
G. e De Filippis F. (a cura di) L’accordo Gatt in agricoltura e l’Unione Europea,
Franco Angeli, Milano.
European Economy (1996). The CAP and enlargement. Economic effects of the
compensatory payments. n. 2, 1996.
Fanfani, R. (1990). Lo sviluppo della politica agricola comunitaria, NIS, Roma.
Fennel, R. (1987). The Common Agricultural Policy of the E.C.. Oxford, BSP
Professional Books.
Guyomard, H., Mahé, L., Roe, T., and Tarditi, S. (1994). “The CAP Reform and
E.C.-U.S. Relations: The GATT as a cap on the CAP”. In Agricultral TradeConflicts and GATT, (a cura di Anania G., Carter, C., McCalla A.) Westview Press,
Boulder, 1994.
Guyomard, H., Mahe, L. (1994). “Is a Production Quota Pareto Superior to Price
Support Only?”. European Review of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 21 (1). p 31-36.
Guyomard, H., Mahe, L. (1994). “Measures of Distorting Support in the Context
of Production Quotas”. European Review of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 21 (1).
p 5-30.
Hitiris, T. (1991). European Community Economics, London, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
INEA (1999). La riforma della PAC in Agenda 2000. Roma
Koester, U. (1979). “Gli effetti redistributivi del sistema comunitario di
finanziamento della politica agraria”. Rivista di Economia Agraria, XXXIV, 2.
Salvatici, L. (1996). “Dall’Accordo generale sulle tariffe e sul commercio
all’Organizzazione mondiale per il commercio”. In Anania G. e De Filippis F. (a
cura di) L’accordo Gatt in agricoltura e l’Unione Europea, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Sarris, A., Freebairn, J. (1983). “Endogenous Price Policies and International Wheat
Policies”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 65, 1.
Scockai, P., Moschini, G., (1993). “Interventi disaccoppiati, riforma della pac e
redditi agricoli: un’analisi qualitativa”. Rivista di Economia Agraria, XLVIII,3.
13
Tangermann S., Josling T. (1994). Pre-accession agricultural policies for Central
Europe and European Union. Rapporto finale di uno studio commissionato da DG1
della U.E., Bruxelles.
Tracy, M. (1990). Government and Agriculture in Western Europe 1880-1988,London, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Final exam
Students will be asked the preparation of a paper on topics agreed with the
teacher to be consigned by two weeks after the end of classes.
14
NON-MARKET VALUATION
Instructor: Gianni Cicia
Centro per la Formazione in Economia e Politica
dello Sviluppo Rurale - Università di Napoli Federico II
E-mail: [email protected]
Summary and Objectives
This course introduces students to the concepts and methods commonly used in
applying economics to analyze environmental and natural resource problems
with special focus on Agriculture.
In many cases this requires an understanding of the methods of nonmarket
valuation. Hence we will cover the theory of nonmarket values and the methods
for estimation in the context of environmental and natural resources.
We will consider numerous applications in the context of agriculture and natural
resource management.
Computer Lab will involve analysis of contingent valuation, travel-cost demand,
and hedonic price data sets, respectively (Stata software).
Grading:
Problem Sets: 40%
Final Exam: 60%
Course Readings(Subject to change during the semester)
Just, R. E, Hueth D. L., and Schmitz A. The Welfare Economics of Public Policy: A
Practical Approach to Project And Policy Evaluation, Cheltenham, Edwrd Elgar
Publishing, 2005.
Freeman, A. Myrick, III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values.
Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, 2003.
Sen, A. (1970): The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal, The Journal of Political
Economy, vol. 78, n. 1.
Champ, Patricia A., Kevin J. Boyle, and Thomas Brown. A Primer on Nonmarket
Valuation. Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.
15
Haab T. C. and. McConnell K. E., Environmental and Natural Resources, the
Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation, Cheltenham, Edwrd Elgar Publishing, 2003.
Carson, R. T. and Hanemann M. (2006): Contingent Valuation, in Mäler K. G. &.
Vincent J. R (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics,, Amsterdam, Elsewier.
Carson, R. T. and · Groves, T. (2007): Incentive and informational properties of
preference questions, Environmental & Resource Economics 37:181-210
Overview of Topics
• Theory of Welfare Economics and Public Goods
o Pareto Optimality and Pareto Criterion defined
o Limitation of the Pareto Criterion
o Pareto Optimality and the competitive equilibrium
o Market failure
o Private Goods and Public Goods
o Externalities
• Conceptual Framework for Nonmarket Valuation
o Ethics and Economics
o Economic Utilitarianism
o Money metrics in Welfare Economics
o Consumer Surplus
o Compensating Variation
o Equivalent Variation
o Producer Surplus
o Historical evolution of market and nonmarket valuation
o The concept of Value in Economics
o The Total Economic Value
• Stated Preferences and Revealed Preferences to Valuation
o Contingent Valuation
o Travel Cost Method
o Hedonic Price
• Nonmarket Valuation Case studies in Agriculture
16
EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY APPROACH
INSTRUCTORS: Teresa Del Giudice and Fabio VerneauCentro per la Formazione in Economia e Politica
dello Sviluppo Rurale - Università di Napoli Federico II
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Current Scenario
Food safety, as intended at the European level, shows fundamental differences
compared to interpretation and implementation in the Unites States. In fact, EU
adopts a system approach that combines the need for reducing human health
related risks with elements considering the impact of these policies on
environment and society. One of the elements is striving to preserve the linkage
between agriculture, technologies, territory, cultural identity and new
approaches to consumption. The European approach expresses noticeable
attention to social issues such as animal welfare, workers’ conditions, and
biodiversity, which have an important weight on policy choices regarding food
safety, similarly to food borne risk management. Besides the interests shown
by the public stakeholders, needs of private entrepreneurship must also be
considered, especially those of the modern distribution and retailing sector.
Although objectives between public and private stake holders might be
substantially different, common interests could be achieved in regard to social,
environmental and cultural issues. Food standards, coming up from both private
and public, adopted by the retailing sector, refer to an evolving concept of
quality and safety. In this way, retailers are focusing a growing attention to
cultural techniques, and correct on-farm chemical use. Modern standards
coming from private interests, on the other hand, allow strong attention to issues
concerning the new target of collective sensitiveness.
Main topics
a) The new needs of European society
b) Risk perception and market scares: Measuring the discrepancy in risk
evaluation between lay people and experts
c) Historical evolution of European regulations
d) The European approach to food safety and quality: its uniqueness
17
e) Main strategies for public and private parties:
i) Traceability (meat sector)
ii) Typical production and Denomination of Origin (DOP, IGP,
“Slowfood”)
iii) Organic food (Italian experience)
iv) Fair trade
v) Private standards and voluntary certification schemes
(EurepGap, GlobalGap, Tesco Nature’s Choice)
f) Costs and benefits comparison of the following schemes:
i) Traceability
ii) Public and voluntary certification (Organic, Denomination of
Origin)
iii) Private certification (GlobalGap)
Reading List
Blok A., Jensen M., Kaltoft P. (2008) Social identities and risk: expert and lay
imaginations on pesticide use, Public Understanding of science n. 17, pp 189-209.
Brunstad R., Gaasland I., Vårdal E. (2005),Multifunctionality of agriculture: an
inquiry into the complementarity between landscape preservation and food security
Eur Rev Agric Econ 32: 469-488.
Douglas M., Wildavsky A. (1982) Risk and Culture: an Essay on the Selection ofTechnological and Environmental Dangers, California University Press, Berkeley.
Eiser, R.J., Miles, S., Frewer, L.J. (2002), “Trust, perceived risk, and attitudes toward
food technologies”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No.11, pp.2423-33.
European Communities (2003), European Business, Facts and Figures Part 4:
Consumer Goods and Media, European Communities, Luxembourg
Faass J., Lahr M. (2007) Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American
support for genetically Modified Crops: An examination of influental factors using
a binomial dependent variable, MPRA paper No. 6124.
Fife-Schaw, C., Rowe, G. (2000), Extending the application of the psychometric
approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological
considerations, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 3 No.2, pp.167-79.
18
Fischler C., (1990) L’Homnivore : le goût, la cuisine et le corps, Odile Jacob, Paris,
Fischler C., Masson E. (2007) Francais, Europeens et Americains face a
l’alimentation, Paris, Ed. Odile Jacob.
Food Standards Agency (2004), “Consumer attitudes to food standards”, final report
available at: www.foodstandards.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/cas2003.pdf
Fredrik Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.(2007),Consumer willingness to pay
for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter,European
Review of Agricultural Economics 34: 321-344.
Frewer, L.J., Salter, B. (2003), The changing governance of biotechnology: the
politics of public trust in the agri-food sector, Applied Biotechnology, Food Science
and Policy, Vol. 1 No.4, pp.1-8.
Gaskell G., Kronberger N., Fischer C., Hampel J (2007) Consumer perceptions of
food products from cloned animals: A social scientific perspective, European Food
Safety Authority
Grunert K.G. (2005), Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand Eur
Rev Agric Econ 32: 369-391
Hansen J., Holm L., Frewer L., Lynn J., Robinson P., Sandoe P., (2003) Beyond the
knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks,
Appetite, Vol. 41, pp. 111-121.
Korthals M. (2004) Ethics of differences in risk perception and views on food safety,
Food protection Trends, Vol. 24, n. 7, pp. 498-507
Loureiro M., Gracia A., Nayga M. R Jr.(2006), Do consumers value nutritional
labels? European Review of Agricultural Economics 2006 33: 249-268.
Ménard C., Valceschini E. (2005), New institutions for governing the agri-food
industry Eur Rev Agric Econ 32: 421-440
Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., Ritson, C., Frewer, L.J. (2004),
“Public worry about specific food safety issues”, British Food Journal, Vol. 106
No.1, pp.9-22.
Rozin P. (2005) The meaning of natural. Process More important than Content,
Psycological science, Vol 16, pp. 652-658
19
Schroeder T., Tonsor G., Pennings J., Mintert J. (2007) The role of consumer
Perceptions and Attitides in cross cultural Beef consumption Changes, Selected paper
for presentation at the Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting,
Portland.
Siegrist M., Keller C., Kiers H.A. (2005) A new look at the psychometric paradigm
of perception of hazard, Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, n. 1, pp.211-222.
SINER-GI (2006), Strengthening International Research on Geographical
Indications: from research foundation to consistent policy, Legal and Institutional
issues related to GIs. Final report October 2006.
Sjoberg L. (2000a) Factors in risk perception, Risk Analysis, Vol.20, n.1, pp. 1-10.
Sjöberg, L. (2000b) Specifying factors in radiation risk perception. ScandinavianJournal of Psychology, n.41, pp.169-174.
Slovic, P. (1992), Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm, in
Krimsky, S., Golding, D. (Eds), Social Theories of Risk, Praeger, Westport, CT,
pp.117-52.
Slovic, P. (1993), Perceived risk, trust, and democracy, Risk Analysis, Vol. 13 No.6,
pp.675-82.
Sparks P., Shepherd R..(1994) Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated
with food-production and food-consumption: an empirical study. Risk Analysis 14,
pp. 799–806.
Valeeva N., Meuwissen M., Lansink A., Huirne R. (2007), Cost implications of
improving food safety in the Dutch dairy chain, Eur Rev Agric Econ 2006 33: 511-
541.
Wardman J.K. (2006) Toward a critical discourse on affect and risk perception,
Journal of Risk research. Vol. 9, pp 109-124
Wildavsky A., Dake K. (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why?
Daedalus, n. 4 pp 41-60.
20