对食品安全事件“捂盖子”能保护食品行业吗——基于2896起食品安全事件的实证分析
|
摘要
本文首先提出"弹簧效应"假说,并基于2004年2月至2017年2月期间国内媒体报道的2896起食品安全事件,定量估算对食品安全事件"捂盖子"对于重要的食品子行业的影响。分析表明,如果从保护食品行业的目标出发,对食品安全事件"捂盖子",降低媒体对食品安全事件的监督效率,对餐饮业、食品加工业、酒饮料制造业和食品制造业的发展均有负向影响,"弹簧效应"假说得到验证。相关研究结论对于合理定位媒体监督在我国食品安全监管体系中的制度价值,具有重要的理论与实践意义。
It is of decisive significance for the top-level design of the food safety regulatory system framework to accurately answer the core question that whether "keeping secret" for food safety incidents can protect the food industry. This article firstly proposed the "spring effect" hypothesis, based on 2896 food safety incidents reported by domestic media during the period from February 2004 to February 2017. This article thenquantitatively estimated the impact of "keeping secret" for food safety incidents on four important food sub-sectors: catering, food processing, wine and beverage manufacturing, and food manufacturing. The results show that if the food safety incident is covered from the goal of protecting the food industry, it is counterproductivebecause there are negative effects on the development of the catering industry, food processing industry, wine and beverage manufacturing industry, as well as food manufacturing industry. The "spring effect" hypothesis has been verified. The relevant conclusions have important theoretical and practical significance for the reasonable positioning of media supervision in China's food safety regulatory system.
It is of decisive significance for the top-level design of the food safety regulatory system framework to accurately answer the core question that whether "keeping secret" for food safety incidents can protect the food industry. This article firstly proposed the "spring effect" hypothesis, based on 2896 food safety incidents reported by domestic media during the period from February 2004 to February 2017. This article thenquantitatively estimated the impact of "keeping secret" for food safety incidents on four important food sub-sectors: catering, food processing, wine and beverage manufacturing, and food manufacturing. The results show that if the food safety incident is covered from the goal of protecting the food industry, it is counterproductivebecause there are negative effects on the development of the catering industry, food processing industry, wine and beverage manufacturing industry, as well as food manufacturing industry. The "spring effect" hypothesis has been verified. The relevant conclusions have important theoretical and practical significance for the reasonable positioning of media supervision in China's food safety regulatory system.
引文
1.Kornai,J.,Weibull,J.W.Paternalism,buyers“and sellers” market,Mathematical Social Sciences,1983,6(2):153～169
2.Thaler,R.,H.,Cass R.S.Libertarian Paternalism,American Economic Review,2003,93(2):175～179
3.Nelson,P.Advertising as Information,Journal of Political Economy,1974,84(4):729～754
4.Meulbroek L.K.,Mitchell M.L.,Mulherin J.H.,Netter J.M.,Poulsen A.B.“Shark Repellents and Managerial Myopia:An Empirical Test”,Journal of Political Economy,1990,98(5):1108～1117
5.Laverty,K.J.Managerial Myopia or Systemic Short -Termism?The Importance of Managerial Systems in Valuing the Long Term,Management Decision,2004,42(8):949～962
6.Ridge,W.J.,Kern.D.A.,White M.The Influence of Managerial Myopia on Firm Strategy,Management Decision,2014,52(3):602～623
7.Laibson,D.Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting,The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1997,112(2),443～478
8.Frederick,S.,Loewenstein G.,and O donoghue T.Time discounting and time preference:A critical review,Journal of economic literature,2002,40(2),351～401
9.DellaVigna,S.Psychology and Economics:Evidence from the Field,Journal of Economic Literature,2009,47(2):315～372
10.Fleming K,Thorson E,Zhang Y.Going beyond exposure to local news media:an information-processing examination of public perceptions of food safety,Journal of Health Communication,2006,11(8):789
11.Jong W.J.,Hyung S.L.,Jae H.P.Roles of Media Exposure and Interpersonal Experiences on Country Brand:The Mediated Risk Perception Mode,Journal of Promotion Management,2009,15(1-2):321～339
12.Braun J.,Niederdeppe J.Disruption and Identity Maintenance in Risk Information Seeking and Processing,Communication Theory,2012,22(2):138～162
13.孔东民,刘莎莎,应千伟.公司行为中的媒体角色:激浊扬清还是推波助澜.管理世界,2013(7):145～162
14.熊艳,李常青,魏志华.媒体“轰动效应”:传导机制、经济后果与声誉惩戒——基于“霸王事件”的案例研究.管理世界,2011(10):125～140
15.人民日报评论部.“媒介素养”体现执政水平.人民日报,2011-06-16
16.倪国华,郑风田.媒体监管的交易成本对食品安全监管效率的影响经济学(季刊),2014(2):559～582
17.李想,石磊.行业信任危机的一个经济学解释:以食品安全为例.经济研究,2014(1):169～181
18.龚强,张一林,余建宇.激励、信息与食品安全规制.经济研究,2013(3):135～147
19.叶德珠.和谐社会构建与政府干预的路径选择—从英国政府拟实行人体器官捐赠“推定同意” 规则谈起.经济学(季刊),2010(2):731～748
20.魏文彪,李汴生.涉及食品安全报道该不该监审.第一财经日报.2013-01-30
21.吴元元.信息基础,声誉机制与执法优化——食品安全治理的新视野.中国社会科学,2012(6):115-133
22.李新春,陈斌.企业群体性败德行为与管制失效——对产品质量安全与监管的制度分析.经济研究,2013(10):98～112
23.王永钦,刘思远,杜巨澜.信任品市场的竞争效应与传染效应:理论和基于中国食品行业的事件研究.经济研究,2014(2):141～154
(1)食品的信任品特性主要是指消费者在消费之后也没有能力了解的风险特征(如奶粉中的三聚氰胺等有害残留物)。与颜色、大小等搜寻品特性,以及口感、味道等经验品特性相比,有害残留物与人体作用的机理相当复杂,而且具有一定的潜伏期,有时即使是专业的检测机构也缺乏必要的鉴别手段,所以,消费者在食用后亦无法准确判断食品的信任品特性
2.Thaler,R.,H.,Cass R.S.Libertarian Paternalism,American Economic Review,2003,93(2):175～179
3.Nelson,P.Advertising as Information,Journal of Political Economy,1974,84(4):729～754
4.Meulbroek L.K.,Mitchell M.L.,Mulherin J.H.,Netter J.M.,Poulsen A.B.“Shark Repellents and Managerial Myopia:An Empirical Test”,Journal of Political Economy,1990,98(5):1108～1117
5.Laverty,K.J.Managerial Myopia or Systemic Short -Termism?The Importance of Managerial Systems in Valuing the Long Term,Management Decision,2004,42(8):949～962
6.Ridge,W.J.,Kern.D.A.,White M.The Influence of Managerial Myopia on Firm Strategy,Management Decision,2014,52(3):602～623
7.Laibson,D.Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting,The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1997,112(2),443～478
8.Frederick,S.,Loewenstein G.,and O donoghue T.Time discounting and time preference:A critical review,Journal of economic literature,2002,40(2),351～401
9.DellaVigna,S.Psychology and Economics:Evidence from the Field,Journal of Economic Literature,2009,47(2):315～372
10.Fleming K,Thorson E,Zhang Y.Going beyond exposure to local news media:an information-processing examination of public perceptions of food safety,Journal of Health Communication,2006,11(8):789
11.Jong W.J.,Hyung S.L.,Jae H.P.Roles of Media Exposure and Interpersonal Experiences on Country Brand:The Mediated Risk Perception Mode,Journal of Promotion Management,2009,15(1-2):321～339
12.Braun J.,Niederdeppe J.Disruption and Identity Maintenance in Risk Information Seeking and Processing,Communication Theory,2012,22(2):138～162
13.孔东民,刘莎莎,应千伟.公司行为中的媒体角色:激浊扬清还是推波助澜.管理世界,2013(7):145～162
14.熊艳,李常青,魏志华.媒体“轰动效应”:传导机制、经济后果与声誉惩戒——基于“霸王事件”的案例研究.管理世界,2011(10):125～140
15.人民日报评论部.“媒介素养”体现执政水平.人民日报,2011-06-16
16.倪国华,郑风田.媒体监管的交易成本对食品安全监管效率的影响经济学(季刊),2014(2):559～582
17.李想,石磊.行业信任危机的一个经济学解释:以食品安全为例.经济研究,2014(1):169～181
18.龚强,张一林,余建宇.激励、信息与食品安全规制.经济研究,2013(3):135～147
19.叶德珠.和谐社会构建与政府干预的路径选择—从英国政府拟实行人体器官捐赠“推定同意” 规则谈起.经济学(季刊),2010(2):731～748
20.魏文彪,李汴生.涉及食品安全报道该不该监审.第一财经日报.2013-01-30
21.吴元元.信息基础,声誉机制与执法优化——食品安全治理的新视野.中国社会科学,2012(6):115-133
22.李新春,陈斌.企业群体性败德行为与管制失效——对产品质量安全与监管的制度分析.经济研究,2013(10):98～112
23.王永钦,刘思远,杜巨澜.信任品市场的竞争效应与传染效应:理论和基于中国食品行业的事件研究.经济研究,2014(2):141～154
(1)食品的信任品特性主要是指消费者在消费之后也没有能力了解的风险特征(如奶粉中的三聚氰胺等有害残留物)。与颜色、大小等搜寻品特性,以及口感、味道等经验品特性相比,有害残留物与人体作用的机理相当复杂,而且具有一定的潜伏期,有时即使是专业的检测机构也缺乏必要的鉴别手段,所以,消费者在食用后亦无法准确判断食品的信任品特性