master in agricultural economics in portici term 2010.pdf · iv. nonlinear single-equation model a....

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)


Applied MicroeconometricsLecturer: Gary Thompson - University of Arizona, Tucson

June 14 - July 8; 32 hours (plus practices)


Non market valuationLecturer: Gianni Cicia, Centro di Portici and University of Naples



Common Agricultural PolicyLecturer: Antonio Cioffi, Centro di Portici and University of Naples



* 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


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


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



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


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