1 / 54

Information & Demand

Information & Demand. Aviral Chopra Dr. David Bessler November 18,2004. D. S. $. Q. Demand Estimation. Demand Function of A D A = ƒ(P A ,P S ,P C ,Y,S,Z) P A = Price of Product A P S =Price of Substitutes P C =Price of Complements Y=Per Capita Income S= Taste and Preferences

david-riggs
Download Presentation

Information & Demand

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Information & Demand Aviral Chopra Dr. David Bessler November 18,2004

  2. D S $ Q Demand Estimation Demand Function of A DA= ƒ(PA,PS,PC,Y,S,Z) PA= Price of Product A PS=Price of Substitutes PC=Price of Complements Y=Per Capita Income S= Taste and Preferences Z=Other Factors (Info) DA= ƒ(PA,PS,PC,Y,S,Z) Demand Shifter Movement along demand curve

  3. Demand Estimation • Demand shift can be in • Long-term • Short-term • Long-Term shift can be due to • Change in preferences and tastes • Change in Income • Better/Cheaper substitute products Over Period of time Permanent in Nature OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

  4. Demand Estimation • Short-term shift can be due to • Change in price of the good • Change in price of complement/s • Information (Positive or Negative) Small time horizon Transitory in Nature NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND POTENTIAL FOR PERMANENT CHANGE LOSS MOST IMPORTANT ISIMPACT OF INFORMATIONON DEMAND

  5. INFORMATION • Information can be • Good News • Bad News • Good news can increase demand • Red Wine • Bad News can decrease demand

  6. INFORMATIONBAD NEWS PROCESS PRODUCT TEMPERING TERRORISM INTENTIONAL X MICROBIOLOGICAL BAD NEWS PROCESS FAULTY PARTS IN AUTO INDUSTRY HARMFUL CHEMICALS IN FOOD PRODUCTS MEDICINES WITH HARMFUL SIDE EFFECTS NON-INTENTIONAL MICROBIOLOGICAL BACTERIAL INFECTION IN FOOD PRODUCTS

  7. IMPACT OF BAD NEWS • Depends on • Media Coverage of event • Greater coverage greater impact • Intensity of the event • Severity of the event • Duration of impact • Short term • Temporary change in demand • Long term • Permanent shift in demand of the products

  8. RESPONSE • Voluntary Actions • Concerned Industry formulated self regulatory policies • Regulatory Actions • Ex-Post VS Ex-Ante response • Most Policy Changes after the events

  9. INTENTIONAL

  10. PRODUCT TAMPERING The intentional adulteration or corruption of goods post production • Done to create panic • Extort money through product liability lawsuits

  11. THE EARLIEST CASE • Jaffa Oranges injected with Mercury • February 1978 • Palestinian Worker injected Israeli Oranges with Liquid Mercury • Publicity resulted in fruit sales plummeted throughout Europe

  12. THE FAMOUS CASE • Tylenol Cyanide Deaths : Chicago 1982 • 7 people died in the Chicago area between September 29th and October 1st • Died because of Cyanide poisoning after having taken Tylenol • Received more television news air time than any incident since the assassination of President Kennedy • The “FEDERAL ANTI-TEMPERING ACT” enacted after Tylenol poisoning • Cost J&J $100 million

  13. OTHER CASES • Girl Scout cookies with needles: April 1984 • Candy Cyanide poisoning in Japan: 1984 • Excedrin cyanide deaths in NY : Feb 1986 • Lipton Cup-A-Soup cyanide : 1986 • Tylenol Cyanide : 1986 • Chilean Fruit Scandal: Mar 1989 • Goody’s Headache Powder cyanide : 1992

  14. CHILEAN FRUTI SCANDAL • Fruits that are exported from Chile to USA and Japan were injected with Cyanide in March 1989 • Protest against the living condition of poor in Chile • FDA investigation confirmed the claims leading to full inspection of fruits and vegetables from Chile

  15. RESPONSE • GOVERNMENT • No policy till TYLNEOL (1983) case became public (Ex-Post Policy) • Enacted Federal Anti-Tempering Act in 1983 • PUBLIC • Sudden drop in consumption • MEDIA • High coverage to these events • Spurious claims (HOAX) across the country Fraudulent tempering claims became a punishable offense

  16. NON-INTENTIONAL

  17. INDUSTRIES AFFECTED • Main industry impacted by this kind of events are • FOOD • PHARMACEUTICAL • AUTOMOBILE

  18. MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION • Microbiological contamination arise due to virus, bacteria or Parasites • Causes immediate health concern for the consumers • Brief illness • Severe Sickness • Death • Most severely effects older people, infants or young ones and people with weak immune system

  19. MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION • Most common contamination in Beef, followed by Pork and then in Poultry • Food Safety Inspection Services (FSIS) started collecting data since 1982. • Most recall started in 1983 and more common after 1988 indicating growth in medical science in identifying these diseases

  20. SEVERIETY OF FOOD RECALLS • Three kind of recalls (FDA) • Class 1: With reasonable probability that exposure will cause serious adverse health consequences or death • Class 2: Exposure may cause temporary or medically reversible health consequences • Class 3:Not likely to cause any adverse health consequences

  21. RESPONSE • CONSUMERS • Reduction in demand for the category • Short-term • CORPORATIONS • Product Recall • MEDIA • Coverage depends on intensity of the event HIGH COST TO SOCIETY

  22. COSTS • Costs associated with food borne diseases • Costs to individuals • Income and Productivity costs • Pain and sufferings • Leisure time losses • Travel Costs • Medical Costs • Industry Costs • Product recall cost • Product liability costs • Reduced product demand

  23. COSTS • Public Health costs • Outbreak Investigation • Disease Surveillance • Clean up costs

  24. TOTAL COST • Costs related with these food diseases varies by pathogens • Average cost per case for Salmonella estimated to be $700(Most common). • Average cost per case for Listeria estimated to be $135,000 (Highest). • Total food borne bacterial diseases estimated to be $4.8 billion in 1987

  25. FOOD INDUSTRY • Product recalled • Hamburgers • Fruit Juices • Prepared Meals • Fruits and Vegetables

  26. IMPACT OF FOOD RECALLS • Small companies are affected more by recall • Big Companies are not affected by recall mainly due to • Diversification • Ability to control • Product recall significantly impacts the demand of the products • Severity of contamination affects the company • Media Information does not have any significant impact alone • Product recall induces reallocation of expenditure within the meat group and across non meat group

  27. MEAT RECALL & FUTURES PRICE • Beef recalls marginally influences the nearby live cattle prices if the recalls are sizeable and would cause a serious health hazards • Price may decline by $0.38/CWT • It takes roughly five days for the prices to recover to the pre-recall level • Large serious pork recalls may have an immediate impact on nearby lean hog prices

  28. DRUG RECALLS Costs associated with Drug Recalls • DIRECT COSTS • Product recall • INDIRECT COSTS • Loss of faith in firms products • Product Liability Suits • Rebuilding the image • Spillover effects on manufacturers of substitute products

  29. DRUG RECALLS • Capital market loss is related to publicity surrounding the recall • Tylenol : $100 million ($50 million in product recall and $50 million in rebuilding consumer confidence). • More stringent regulations by FDA in future

  30. AUTO RECALLS • COSTS involved with recalls • Direct costs are very small • Indirect costs have loss sales and goodwill loss • Frequency of recall • Resale value is significantly impacted • Industry wide impact of recall as competitors are also affected • Self regulation

  31. AGROCHEMICALS • Pesticides/Fungicides affects environment or health • Captan and Iprodione : Human Carcinogens • DDT : Environment • Endosulfan : Hormonal imbalance • Alar : Human Carcinogens

  32. IMPACT • GOVERNMENT • Ban agrochemical • MEDIA • Gives prominence to Controversial Studies • CONSUMERS • Generally demand affected in short-term due to media coverage • Long-term demand changes depending on the severity of the problems

  33. ALAR & APPLES • Alar pesticide is used in apples and peanuts • High level of exposure can cause cancer • Very high media coverage • Advertisement by National Resource Defense Council • Two episodes of 60 minutes • Cover of Time • Major Newspapers

  34. ALAR & APPLES • CONSUMERS • School dropped apples from their menu • Parents poured apple juice down the drains APPLES SALES PLUMMETED • PRODUCERS • Advertised in leading newspaper with technical details of very small level • Advertisement Expenditure $3million

  35. VARIOUS STUDY • Impact on • Demand of the product • Price of the product • Share price of the Company

  36. IMPACT ON DEMAND • The impact of BSE on the demand of beef and other meats in Great Britain. (Applied Economics, 1996) • Impact of meat product recalls on consumer demand in the USA. (Applied Economics, 2004)

  37. DATA & MODEL • U K STUDY • Beef, Pork, Lamb & Poultry • Per capita data on price and Expenditure shares • Quarterly Data from 1961 to 1993 • Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS) model was used

  38. DATA & MODEL • U S A STUDY • Beef, Pork, Poultry & Other Consumption goods • Price and Quantity • Quarterly Data from 1982 to 1998 • ROTTERDAM MODEL

  39. MODELS IN DEMAND ANALYSIS • MOST POPULA MEAT DEMAND MODELS ARE • ROTTERDAM MODEL • ALMOST IDEAL DEMAND SYSTEM (AIDS) • ASYMPTOTIC IDEAL MODEL (AIM) • DIRECTED GRAPH MODEL (DGM) • VECTOR ERROR CORRECTION MODEL (VECM)

  40. MODELS IN DEMAND ANALYSIS • Forecast Evaluations in Meat Demand Analysis, Agribusiness, 2003 • VECM performs best

  41. DEMAND ESTIMATION IN UK

  42. DATA • MONTHY DATA • Jan 1985 to Dec 2002 (216 Data points) • MEAT • Beef, Pork, Poultry and Lamb/Mutton • Prices and Quantity • THREE LEVELS • FARM PRICE (PP) • WHOLESELL PRICE (WP) • RETAIL PRICE (RP)

  43. MODEL • We will be using • VECTOR ERROR CORRECTION MODEL (VECM) • DIRECTED GRAPHIC METHODS (DGM)

  44. BEEF GRAPHS

  45. LAMB GRAPHS

  46. PORK GRAPHS

  47. POULTRY PRICES

  48. STATIONAITY TEST

  49. DICKY FULLER TEST ΔXT=α0+α1XT-1 H0: α1=0 Critical Value at 5% Significant level is -2.89 α1 estimated using Ordinary Least Square (OLS)

  50. AUGUMENTED DICKY FULLER TEST H0: α1=0 Critical Value at 5% Significant level is -2.89 α1 estimated using Ordinary Least Square (OLS) Lags (p) are determined by minimizing Schwarz Loss metrics

More Related