Master´s Thesis Evaluation by the Opponent
Title of the Master´s Thesis:
Positive and Negative Impacts of a Meat Tax on Society: the Case of Sweden Author of the Master´s Thesis:
Valerie Friederike Berger Goals of the Master´s Thesis:
To examine whether the social of meat consumption exceeds its social costs.
Evaluation:
Criteria Description Max.
points
Points
Content 70%
Output Quality Results are well presented, discussed - substantiated, relevant and original (i.e. novelty produced by the author). They are of high practical/theoretical
relevance. 20 18
Goals The goals of the thesis are evident and accomplished.
10 9
Methodology: Methods are adequate and used correctly in relation to pre-set goals.
20 17
Theory/
Conceptualization: Demonstration of an in-depth understanding of the topic area (state-of-the- art) including key concepts, terminology, theories, definitions, etc. based on
a literature survey. Literature review. 20 19
Formal requirements 15% Structure: The thesis is a consistent, well-organised logical whole.
3 3
Terminology: Linguistic and terminological level. 4 4
Formalities: Formal layout and requirements, extent, abstract.
4 3
Citing: Quality of citations and reflection of Ephorus results.
4 4
Delivery 15 %
Presentation
document: Is the presentation itself structured in a clear way? Is it appealing and easy to
follow? Does it convey the message efficiently? 5
Presentation
skills: Are you conveying the message efficiently and timely? Do you use
appropriate words, speed, tone of voice, gestures, movement etc. to express
your thoughts in a clear manner? 5
Argumentation: Are you able to readily and briskly react to questions or comments? Are you able to explain unclear parts and connect comments to relevant places in your presentation or parts of particular analyses? How well are you able to
defend to your ideas and recommendations? 5
100 0
Other comments:
The thesis aims to examine the benefits and costs (including external) of consuming meat. Based on the literature review, the thesis concludes that the costs exceed the benefits, and a Pigouvian tax (possibly together with other policies) could fix the problem. The author also conducts a survey and applies the van Westendrop method to determine the acceptable price ranges for various types of meat.
The topic is highly important and up-to-date, and the thesis is overall well-written. I especially enjoyed reading the literature review in Section 2. I appreciate that the author collected data and conducted an empirical analysis. (I also appreciate the very Swedish title of Section 5.3!) Nevertheless, several aspects could be improved further.
1. There are problems with the theoretical framework. Negative externality means that some costs are not internalized by the market (as shown in Figure 7), which results in allocative inefficiency (deadweight loss).
Pigouvian taxes attempt to remedy this inefficiency. That is, they do not create the deadweight loss (as do taxes in markets without externalities – Figure 6), but they eliminate it. Therefore, you don’t have to compare the impact of the Pigouvian tax on cost and utility: Pigouvian tax always increases welfare (ignoring the administrative costs). (If you wanted to do the cost-benefit analysis, you would have to include not only the cost of externality but also the cost of production).
2. Although transportation of meat is possibly associated with additional externality (p. 12), the efficiency gain from trade has to be balanced against this externality. (Imagine the world with no trade: externality would be smaller, but there would be a waste of resources due to inefficient allocation of resources.)
3. The scope of the thesis is too broad. It would be better if you either focused on the “big problem” (the size of externality and possible solutions) and did the systematic literature review or on some small problem (e.g., consumer willingness to pay for meat) and analyzed it thoroughly.
4. van Westendrop analysis may not be the best choice to test H2 and H3. You could have simply relied on the estimates of the elasticities in the literature, or you could have estimated the demand curve.
5. It is not necessary to explain simple economic concepts (utility, externality, etc.) or summarize how to do research (Section 4.1). You should assume that your readers are familiar with basic economics. In general, it is not necessary to repeat what is written in textbooks. These sections make the thesis unnecessarily long.
In summary, despite some problems, you did a great job, and I hope you will work on this topic further.
