IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/seb/journl/v9y2011i2p167-185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extended Model of the Natural Resource Input-Output Market: Game Meat in Latvia as an Example

Author

Listed:
  • Yukichika Kawata

    (Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Japan)

Abstract

This paper incorporates input and output markets into a traditional natural resource economics model which was developed in fishery economics, in the context of terrestrial wild animal management. This model enables the division of the total game meat under the cull limit into personal consumption and market circulation. It is indicated that the utilization of game meat depends on the limitations in the optimum resource levels and the input market prices. While overuse is a typical problem in fishery economics, underuse is an issue in the case of wild animals, and the model successfully explains this issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Yukichika Kawata, 2011. "Extended Model of the Natural Resource Input-Output Market: Game Meat in Latvia as an Example," South-Eastern Europe Journal of Economics, Association of Economic Universities of South and Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Region, vol. 9(2), pages 167-185.
    • Handle: RePEc:seb:journl:v:9:y:2011:i:2:p:167-185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.asecu.gr/Seeje/issue17/kawata.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Azzam, Azzeddine M. & Schroeter, John R., 1991. "Implications Of Increased Regional Concentration And Oligopsonistic Coordination In The Beef Packing Industry," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Tomislav Vukina & Porametr Leegomonchai, 2006. "Oligopsony Power, Asset Specificity, and Hold-Up: Evidence from the Broiler Industry," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 589-605.
    3. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 124-124.
    4. Weerahewa, Jeevika, 2003. "Estimating Market Power of Tea Processing Sector," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 5, pages 1-15.
    5. Muth, Mary K. & Wohlgenant, Michael K., 1999. "Measuring The Degree Of Oligopsony Power In The Beef Packing Industry In The Absence Of Marketing Input Quantity Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-14, December.
    6. H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Chennat Gopalakrishnan (ed.), Classic Papers in Natural Resource Economics, chapter 9, pages 178-203, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Clark, Colin W. & Munro, Gordon R., 1975. "The economics of fishing and modern capital theory: A simplified approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 92-106, December.
    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. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    2. Grafton, R. Quentin & Kompas, Tom & Chu, Long & Che, Nhu, 2010. "Maximum economic yield," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 1-8.
    3. Pedro Pintassilgo & Michael Finus & Marko Lindroos & Gordon Munro, 2010. "Stability and Success of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(3), pages 377-402, July.
    4. B. N. Obegi & I. Sarfo & G. N. Morara & P. Boera & E. Waithaka & A. Mutie, 2020. "Bio-economic modeling of fishing activities in Kenya: the case of Lake Naivasha Ramsar site," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 15-31, April.
    5. Gordon Munro & U. Sumaila, 2015. "On the Contributions of Colin Clark to Fisheries Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(1), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Hubert Stahn, 2025. "Voluntary management of fisheries under the threat of uncertain legislation," AMSE Working Papers 2501, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    7. McWhinnie, Stephanie F., 2009. "The tragedy of the commons in international fisheries: An empirical examination," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 321-333, May.
    8. Suphaphiphat, Nujin & Peretto, Pietro F. & Valente, Simone, 2015. "Endogenous growth and property rights over renewable resources," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 125-151.
    9. Guillaume Bataille & Benteng Zou, 2024. "International Fisheries Agreements: Endogenous Exits, Shapley Values, and Moratorium Fishing Policy," AMSE Working Papers 2421, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    10. Bertram, Christine, 2010. "Integrating biodiversity indices into a multi-species optimal control model," Kiel Working Papers 1662, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Per Sandberg, 2006. "Variable unit costs in an output-regulated industry: The Fishery," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(9), pages 1007-1018.
    12. Louis-Pascal Mahé & Carole Ropars, 2001. "L'exploitation régulée d'une ressource renouvelable : inefficacité d'un rationnement factoriel et efficacité des quotas individuels transférables," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 148(2), pages 141-156.
    13. Ragnar Arnason, 2009. "Conflicting uses of marine resources: can ITQs promote an efficient solution? ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(1), pages 145-174, January.
    14. Schnier, Kurt E. & Anderson, Christopher M., 2006. "Decision making in patchy resource environments: Spatial misperception of bioeconomic models," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 234-254, October.
    15. Ben White, 2000. "A Review of the Economics of Biological Natural Resources," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 419-462, September.
    16. Lone Grønbæk Kronbak, 2002. "The Dynamics of an Open Access: The case of the Baltic Sea Cod Fishery - A Strategic Approach -," Working Papers 31/02, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    17. Wilen, James E., 2000. "Renewable Resource Economists and Policy: What Differences Have We Made?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 306-327, May.
    18. Manuel Coelho & Jose Antonio Filipe & Manuel Alberto M. Ferreira & Rui Junqueira Lopes, 2013. "Extinction Revisited: “Allee Effect” and Irreversibility in “Schooling” Fisheries," International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, International Journal of Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, vol. 3(1), pages 405-405.
    19. Bene, C. & Doyen, L. & Gabay, D., 2001. "A viability analysis for a bio-economic model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 385-396, March.
    20. Lone Grønbæk, 2000. "Fishery Economics and Game Theory," Working Papers 14/00, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    game meat; input and output markets; oligopsony/oligopoly power model; underuse; personal consumption;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q21 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Demand and Supply; Prices
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:seb:journl:v:9:y:2011:i:2:p:167-185. 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: Ms. Melina Petromelidou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/asecuea.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.