Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(2011)
Mushroom Levy Payer’s Website
J. Angrist, Jörn-Steffen Pischke (2008)
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
H. Kaiser (2005)
The economics of commodity promotion programs : lessons from California
C. Tremblay, Victor Tremblay (1995)
THE IMPACT OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER SURPLUS, PROFIT, AND SOCIAL WELFAREContemporary Economic Policy, 13
(2010)
Australian Demographic Statistics
Alston (2007)
An evaluation of California’s mandated commodity programsApplied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 29
A. Cameron, P. Trivedi (2005)
Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications
J. Alston, J. Freebairn, J. James (2003)
Distributional issues in check-off funded programsAgribusiness, 19
T. Hazledine, Hsin-ta Huang (1990)
Price‐discriminating Marketing Board with Imperfect Supply Control: A Case of B.C. MushroomsCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics-revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie, 38
A. Okrent, J. Alston (2011)
Demand for Food in the United States: A Review of Literature, Evaluation of Previous Estimates, and Presentation of New Estimates of Demand
(2009)
State of the Australian Mushroom Industry
(2005)
Further Quantifying the Factors that Affect Demand for Mushrooms in Australia
J. Alston, J. Crespi, H. Kaiser, R. Sexton (2007)
An Evaluation of California's Mandated Commodity Promotion ProgramsApplied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 29
The Australian Mushroom Growers Association (AMGA) has recently developed a revised marketing strategy to promote mushrooms using messages based on scientific findings about the nutrition and health consequences of regularly incorporating mushrooms into meals. This article evaluates impacts based on a test‐market experiment in Tasmania. We use a difference‐in‐differences econometric methodology to quantify the programme‐induced shifts in demand, and we use the resulting estimates in a supply and demand modelling framework to quantify the effects of promotion‐induced demand shifts on prices, quantities, and measures of economic well‐being. We estimate a conservative benefit–cost ratio for Tasmanian producers of 7.6:1 if they were to bear the entire cost and 11.4:1 if the programme were financed by a levy on production (or spawn). The aggregate benefit–cost ratio, including benefits to consumers is also 11.4:1.
The Australian Journal of Agricultural Resource Economics – Wiley
Published: Jul 1, 2012
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.