Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

Since fairtrade labels are upcoming market instruments, the purpose of this paper is to identify and quantify consumers’ willingness to pay for fairtrade coffee products and tea. Thereby, this paper contributes to the discussion in favour of a non-private regulation of ethical food labels (FLs). Moreover, the paper provides information about the consumer behaviour of the German buying public.

The empirical analysis is based on homescan panel data of 13,000 representative German households, which includes actual purchase data of ground coffee, single-serve coffee, espresso, and tea for a five-year sample period from 2004 to 2008. As a methodological approach, the hedonic technique is used to model coffee and tea prices as a function of time, store, and product characteristics.

Regarding the variables of interest branding a product leads to an average price premium of 22.1 per cent, while the organic FL achieves an average price premium of 34.3 per cent. The highest average price premium of 43.1 per cent is ceteris paribus paid for fairtrade labels. In the case of fairtrade labels, tea products earn the highest implicit prices with 74.0 per cent, followed by ground coffee (54.9 per cent), espresso (24.7 per cent), and single-serve coffee (18.9 per cent).

The present analysis supplements the discussions around the willingness to pay for fairtrade certified products by the German buying public, a product differentiation between coffee products and the introduction of labelled tea. As the data set includes daily purchases, it allows analysis of consumer behaviour on a disaggregated level, given detailed information on prices, stores, origins, FLs, and so on.

This study aims to explore the views of pharmacy professionals (PPs) in Portugal about generic medicines and international non-proprietary name (INN) prescribing and compare them with the views of general practitioners (GPs).

A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of 185 community PPs and 85 GPs. Their perceptions were examined using a five-point Likert scale applied to statements focusing on five main topics of interest: motivation, safety, users’ perceptions and knowledge, advantages and disadvantages of generic medicines and INN prescribing. Daily experiences and suggestions for decreasing health and pharmaceutical expenses were explored through open-ended questions. Nonparametric tests were used to compare attitudes between both groups and to explore associations between the level of agreement and respondents’ demographic characteristics. Content analysis was used to categorize the answers to the open-ended questions.

Generally, GPs expressed more negative opinions toward generics and INN prescribing than PPs. GPs perceived generics as less effective, less safe, inferior in quality, more likely to cause side effects and believed that users do not trust them. Both groups believed that patients remain very confused and ill-informed about generics, only adhering to them because of their low cost and expressed concerns about the existence of an excessive number of generic medicines and the lack of patients’ responsibility toward medicines costs.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to elicit and compare Portuguese GPs and PPs opinions concerning INN prescribing.