IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea04/20282.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Standards, Trade And Protection: The Case Of Gmos

Author

Listed:
  • Anderson, Kym
  • Jackson, Lee Ann

Abstract

A global economy-wide model (GTAP) is used to go beyond estimating how GM crop variety adoption affects adopting and non-adopting economies, with or without policy responses to this technology, by indicating effects also on real incomes of farmers. The results suggest the EU moratorium on imports of GM food helps EU farmers even though it requires them to forego the productivity boost they could receive from the new biotechnology. An upper-bound estimate of the cost of that EU moratorium to developing countries and the world also is provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "Standards, Trade And Protection: The Case Of Gmos," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20282, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea04:20282
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.20282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/20282/files/sp04ja06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.20282?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. van Meijl, Hans & van Tongeren, Frank, 2002. "International Diffusion of Gains from Biotechnology and the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy," Conference papers 331038, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Stone, Susan F. & Matysek, Anna & Dolling, Andrew, 2002. "Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade," Staff Research Papers 31913, Productivity Commission.
    3. Meijl, Hans van & Tongeren, Frank van, 2004. "International diffusion of gains from biotechnology and the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 307-316, December.
    4. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1995. "Trade Wars and Trade Talks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 675-708, August.
    5. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    6. R. K. Lindner & F. G. Jarrett, 1978. "Supply Shifts and the Size of Research Benefits," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 60(1), pages 48-58.
    7. Nielsen, Chantal Pohl & Thierfelder, Karen & Robinson, Sherman, 2003. "Consumer preferences and trade in genetically modified foods," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 777-794, November.
    8. Chantal Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2001. "Global market effects of alternative European responses to genetically modified organisms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 137(2), pages 320-346, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anderson, Kym & Damania, Richard & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "Trade Standards and the Political Economy of Genetically Modified Food," CEPR Discussion Papers 4526, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Kym Anderson, 2005. "Agricultural trade reform and poverty reduction in developing countries," Chapters, in: Sisira Jayasuriya (ed.), Trade Policy Reforms and Development, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Vigani, Mauro & Raimondi, Valentina & Olper, Alessandro, 2010. "GMO Regulations, International Trade and the Imperialism of Standards," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188116, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    4. Anderson, Kym & Huang, Jikun & Ianchovichina, Elena, 2004. "Will China's WTO accession worsen farm household incomes?," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 443-456.
    5. Colyer, Dale, 2004. "Environmental Provisions in Trade Agreements," Conference Papers 19103, West Virginia University, Department of Agricultural Resource Economics.
    6. Vigani, Mauro & Olper, Alessandro, 2013. "GMO standards, endogenous policy and the market for information," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 32-43.
    7. Amrita Chatterjee & Sanjib Pohit & Arpita Ghose, 2016. "Trade and Distributional Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops in India: A CGE Analysis," Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research, National Council of Applied Economic Research, vol. 10(3), pages 381-407, August.
    8. repec:lic:licosd:30612 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:lic:licosd:25510 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "GM food technology abroad and its implications for Australia and New Zealand," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58365, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    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. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "GM food technology abroad and its implications for Australia and New Zealand," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58365, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Jackson, Lee Ann & Anderson, Kym, 2003. "WHY ARE US AND EU POLICIES TOWARD GMOs SO DIFFERENT?," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57898, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Anderson, Kym & Damania, Richard & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "Trade Standards and the Political Economy of Genetically Modified Food," CEPR Discussion Papers 4526, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Gruere, Guillaume & Bouet, Antoine & Mevel, Simon, 2007. "Genetically modified food and international trade: The case of India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and the Philippines," IFPRI discussion papers 740, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2005. "Genetically Modified Rice Adoption: Implications for Welfare and Poverty Alleviation," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 20, pages 771-788.
    6. Kym Anderson & Lee Ann Jacskon, 2004. "GM Food Crop Technology and Trade Measures: Some Economic Implications for Australia and New Zealand," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2004-08, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
    7. Das, Gouranga Gopal, 2005. "Information age to genetic revolution: Embodied technology transfer and assimilation — A tale of two technologies," MPRA Paper 37250, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2006.
    8. Bchir, Mohamed Hedi & Bouet, Antoine, 2009. "Which tariff aggregator for trade modelers?," Conference papers 331888, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Richard Baldwin & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2015. "A simple model of the juggernaut effect of trade liberalisation," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 143, pages 70-79.
    10. Pravin Krishna & Devashish Mitra, 2016. "Reciprocated unilateralism in trade policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Trade Policy Theory, Evidence and Applications, chapter 3, pages 37-63, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Giovanni Maggi & Ralph Ossa, 2020. "Are Trade Agreements Good For You?," NBER Working Papers 27252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Bagwell, Kyle & Lee, Seung Hoon, 2020. "Trade policy under monopolistic competition with firm selection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    13. David De Remer, 2013. "The Evolution of International Subsidy Rules," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2013-45, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Zissimos, Ben, 2007. "The GATT and gradualism," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 410-433, April.
    15. Masahiro Endoh, 2012. "Cross-border political donations and Pareto-efficient tariffs," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 493-512, July.
    16. Rose, Andrew K., 2004. "Do WTO members have more liberal trade policy?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 209-235, July.
    17. Eckhard Janeba & Karl Schulz, 2024. "A Theory Of Economic Disintegration," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 65(1), pages 353-392, February.
    18. Grossman, Gene, 2016. "The Purpose of Trade Agreements," CEPR Discussion Papers 11151, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Nasreen Nawaz, 2019. "Dynamics of economic efficiency in tariff and trade," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 416-443, December.
    20. Nuno Limão & Kamal Saggi, 2018. "Size inequality, coordination externalities and international trade agreements," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 11, pages 319-336, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade;

    JEL classification:

    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models
    • D58 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Computable and Other Applied General Equilibrium Models
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:ags:aaea04:20282. 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.