Conceptual review reveals ethical inconsistencies in monetizing animal lives within agricultural economics, indicating that economic valuation remains inherently speciesist and anthropocentric.
The interest of agricultural economists in questions of animal welfare has been steadily growing. This conceptual review examines whether the methodological approaches used in this literature are consistent with the normative frameworks established by animal ethicists. We find that descriptive work—including preference elicitation among consumers and farmers and institutional approaches to implementing better conditions for farmed animals—is broadly compatible with animal ethics. However, the literature that assigns monetary values to the lives of non-human animals is more difficult to align with animal ethics principles. Comparing the human life valuation literature with nascent approaches to animal life valuation, we show that methodological differences can be identified as speciesist, and that assigning monetary values to animal lives is likely to remain fundamentally anthropocentric, because money itself is an exclusively human social institution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mann et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: