The results in Table 1 show that study characteristics affect the price elasticity of meat differently from region to region. To get a better sense of these differences, we use the results in Table 1 to construct the predicted price elasticity for each meat product in North America, Asia, and Europe. Table 2 provides the absolute value of the predicted price elasticity for each meat product (along with its associated 95% prediction interval), based on the OLS and random effects results, holding each study characteristic dummy variable at its mean (with the exception of the dummy variables associated with every other meat product, which are set to zero).
Table 2 shows the predicted absolute price elasticities in North America and Asia for beef, lamb, and fish tend to exceed those of pork, poultry, and the meat composite. Yet many of the prediction intervals do overlap. Only in the case of North America do we find that beef, lamb, and fish demand are significantly more price elastic compared to poultry. As for Europe, while the absolute price elasticities of beef and lamb continue to remain high, we now find the price elasticity of fish to be lowest in absolute value (although only significantly different from the price elasticity of beef).
In this study we quantitatively surveyed the literature to assess the impact of study characteristics on the price elasticity of meat in North America, Asia, and Europe. Among other issues, we found a greater tendency for the price elasticity to differ across meat products in North America, with the price elasticities of beef, lamb, and fish (poultry) falling in the elastic (inelastic) range. For Asia and Europe, there are not only fewer significant differences in the price elasticity across meat products, but in the case of Europe the price elasticity of fish noticeably falls in the inelastic range. Such results are consistent with differences in consumer preferences for meat across the three regions.
There are several benefits to having a more clear understanding of regional differences in the price elasticity of meat. For instance, in an effort to improve public health, consider a policymaker proposing to subsidize fish consumption by reducing the effective price of fish. Based on our results, such a policy would have a greater impact on fish consumption in North America than in Europe. Given that some study characteristics matter more in certain regions (e.g., functional form of demand in Europe), not only should greater attention be given to such issues when selecting a price elasticity from the literature, but more attention needs to be given as to why such differences exist.
Table 2. Predicted absolute price elasticities by product and region
|Beef||1.084 (1.003, 1.166)||0.981 (0.895, 1.067)||0.981 (0.860, 1.102)|
|Pork||0.913 (0.811, 1.014)||0.809 (0.719, 0.898)||0.936 (0.805, 1.066)|
|Lamb||1.279 (0.955, 1.605)||0.992 (0.573, 1.411)||0.948 (0.778, 1.117)|
|Poultry||0.743 (0.648, 0.839)||0.845 (0.747, 0.942)||0.851 (0.717, 0.986)|
|Fish||1.249 (1.137, 1.362)||0.902 (0.825, 0.979)||0.755 (0.673, 0.838)|
|Meat Composite||0.964 (0.829, 1.099)||0.848 (0.726, 0.971)||0.831 (0.729, 0.933)|
|Effects:||Beef||1.025 (0.956, 1.095)||0.994 (0.913, 1.075)||1.005 (0.894, 1.116)|
|Pork||0.889 (0.803, 0.976)||0.799 (0.714, 0.883)||0.948 (0.828, 1.068)|
|Lamb||1.262 (0.985, 1.539)||1.014 (0.620, 1.408)||0.894 (0.738, 1.049)|
|Poultry||0.715 (0.634, 0.796)||0.836 (0.745, 0.928)||0.859 (0.736, 0.983)|
|Fish||1.083 (0.988, 1.179)||0.822 (0.750, 0.895)||0.791 (0.715, 0.867)|
|Meat Composite||0.872 (0.757, 0.986)||0.729 (0.614, 0.845)||0.899 (0.805, 0.993)|