The problem of heterogeneity between protected geographical indications: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose

For a long time the European geographical indication (GI) regulation has been of great interest to economists and policymakers. To justify exclusive European regulation it is necessary to prove the positive value of a GI quality signal (i.e. label), which is often achieved by quantifying its monetary value for the consumers. But even though a large number of literary contributions already deal with this question, they lack the evaluation of overall effect sizes for the GI label. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to quantify and evaluate the overall marginal consumer willingness to pay for the European GI label.

Design/methodology/approach

To reach this aim, a meta-analysis is used for which a literature survey had been carried out in order to determine the GI label effects (LEs). In addition to previous works, this paper not only includes a meta-analysis, but also implements a heterogeneity analysis to distinguish between the LEs of individual GI standards. To eliminate study- and product-specific determinants of heterogeneity, moderator variables are used.

Findings

The empirical results indicate that consumers have a highly significant and positive marginal willingness to pay for GIs. However, the marginal willingness to pay differs significantly between the individual GI standards and indicates great heterogeneity between the protected products.

Originality/value

As an extension to previous studies and meta-analysis; this paper includes the most extensive GIs meta-data set so far, and conducts for the first time an independent heterogeneity analysis to distinguish between the LEs of individual GI standards and implements a moderator analysis to eliminate study- and product-specific determinants of heterogeneity from the GI effects.

Citation

Leufkens, D. (2018), "The problem of heterogeneity between protected geographical indications: a meta-analysis", British Food Journal, Vol. 120 No. 12, pp. 2843-2856. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2017-0710