Leitzel and Shaikh on Animal Standing in Cost-Benefit Analysis

This blog has been part of an effort to produce some social science papers concerning animal welfare and economics, and the first of those papers is now available: "The Economic Standing of Animals," by Jim Leitzel and Sabina Shaikh. The paper can be downloaded here. 

Abstract: 

Should nonhuman animals possess cost-benefit analysis (CBA) standing, and if so, to what extent? A lack of standing for animals does not mean that their interests are ignored; rather, it implies that their interests are only accounted for to the extent that those with standing – humans – feel some regard for animal welfare.

This paper addresses farm animal policy in the United States and looks at how CBAs are altered as animal interests range from “no standing” to “human-equivalent” standing. Even with no standing for animals, the degree of animal welfare offered by current animal agricultural practices is inefficiently low: human preferences for animal welfare are less than fully reflected in the economic and political marketplaces. Policies that counter existing shortcomings in the markets for animal welfare could be paired with transparency measures that would help ensure that consumers and voters are better informed about the conditions under which farmed animals are raised. Uncertainty concerning the appropriate degree of animal standing counsels for the avoidance of policies that would be highly undesirable if the proper extent of standing turns out to be significantly smaller or larger than expected.