IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aaeach/93699.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dilemma of Safer and Freer Trade: The Case of the US Nursery Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Evans, Edward A.
  • VanSickle, John J.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Evans, Edward A. & VanSickle, John J., 2004. "The Dilemma of Safer and Freer Trade: The Case of the US Nursery Industry," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 19(01), pages 1-4.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaeach:93699
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.93699
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/93699/files/2004-1-06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.93699?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James, Sallie & Anderson, Kym, 1998. "On the need for more economic assessment of quarantine/SPS policies," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), pages 1-20.
    2. Roberts, Donna, 1998. "Implementation Of The Wto Agreement On The Application Of Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures: The First Two Years," Working Papers 14588, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bernard Hoekman & Kym Anderson, 2000. "Developing-Country Agriculture and the New Trade Agenda," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(1), pages 171-180.
    2. Anderson, Kym, 2000. "Agriculture, Developing Countries, And The WTO Millennium Round," CEPR Discussion Papers 2437, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Marianne Kurzweil & Kym Anderson & Damiano Sandri & Will Martin & Ernesto Valenzuela, 2008. "Methodology for Measuring Distortions to Agricultural Incentives," World Bank Publications - Reports 28271, The World Bank Group.
    4. Young, Linda M., 1999. "Moving Toward A Single Market Is Hard: Trade Tensions In The Canadian-U.S. Cattle And Beef Markets," Research Discussion Papers 29235, Montana State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Trade Research Center.
    5. John C. Beghin & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen, 2017. "Nontariff Measures and Standards in Trade and Global Value Chains," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 2, pages 13-38, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Anderson, Kym, 2000. "Agriculture's 'multifunctionality' and the WTO," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(3), pages 1-20.
    7. Glyn Wittwer & Simon McKirdy & Ryan Wilson, 2005. "Regional economic impacts of a plant disease incursion using a general equilibrium approach," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(1), pages 75-89, March.
    8. John Beghin & Mark Melatos, 2017. "The Trade and Welfare Impacts of Australian Quarantine Policies: The Case of Pigmeat," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 15, pages 271-286, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Henson, Spencer & Loader, Rupert, 2001. "Barriers to Agricultural Exports from Developing Countries: The Role of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Requirements," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 85-102, January.
    10. Javelosa, Josyline C. & Schmitz, Andrew, 2006. "Costs and Benefits of a WTO Dispute: Philippine Bananas and the Australian Market," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(01), pages 1-26.
    11. Chengyan Yue & John C. Beghin, 2017. "Tariff Equivalent And Forgone Trade Effects Of Prohibitive Technical Barriers To Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 8, pages 139-150, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Kym Anderson, 2020. "Trade Protectionism In Australia: Its Growth And Dismantling," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(5), pages 1044-1067, December.
    13. Okumu, Luke & Nyankori, James Cyprian Okuk, 2010. "Non-tariff barriers in EAC customs union: implications for trade between Uganda and other EAC countries," Research Series 113621, Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC).
    14. Annalisa Zezza & Federica Demaria & Maria Rosaria Pupo d'Andrea & Jo Swinnen & Giulia Meloni & Senne Vandevelde & Alessandro Olper & Daniele Curzi & Valentina Raimondi & Sophie Drogue, 2018. "Research for AGRI Committee - Agricultural trade: assessing reciprocity of standards," Working Papers hal-02787948, HAL.
    15. Kramb, M.C., 2001. "Eine ökonomische Analyse von sanitären und phytosanitären Außenhandelsmaßnahmen am Beispiel des „Hormonstreites“ zwischen der EU und den USA," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 37.
    16. Kramb, Marc Christopher, 2001. "Die Entscheidungen des Dispute Settlement-Verfahrens der WTO im Hormonstreit zwischen der EU und den USA: Implikationen für den zukünftigen Umgang mit dem SPS-Abkommen," Discussion Papers 3, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Center for international Development and Environmental Research (ZEU).
    17. Runge, C. Ford & Bagnara, Gian Luca & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2001. "Differing U.S. and European Perspectives on GMOs: Political, Economic and Cultural Issues," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 2(2), pages 1-14.
    18. Sinner, Jim, 1999. "Cost-benefit analysis and the SPS Agreement," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 171901, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Roberts, Donna, 1998. "Implementation Of The Wto Agreement On The Application Of Sanitary And Phytosanitary Measures: The First Two Years," Working Papers 14588, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    20. Roberts, Donna & Unnevehr, Laurian J. & Caswell, Julie A. & Sheldon, Ian M. & Wilson, John S. & Otsuki, Tsunehiro & Orden, David, 2001. "The Role Of Product Attributes In The Agricultural Negotiations," Commissioned Papers 14620, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaeach:93699. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.